70.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Ann Arbor, Michigan. University and government account demand was a leading positive mechanism. Event-demand volatility 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
22Sources used
11Primary sources
26Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.6 points average among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Ann Arbor, Michigan
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ZOOM DRAIN produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. University and government account demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.7 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported event-driven demand upside while also creating event-demand volatility. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account demand moved it from #1 to #13 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Ann Arbor, Michigan
University of Michigan campus and hospital scale supports institutional-account service demand
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: University of Michigan hospital staff headcount, November 2025: 22,985 staff. [7] [1]
Michigan Stadium creates recurring very-large event demand and operating variance near stadium and downtown trade areas
The same local condition created complementary effects: event-driven demand upside supported exposed concepts while event-demand volatility constrained others. [10]
Ann Arbor resident population estimate was 122,233 on July 1, 2025
Resident population alone understates the scale of institution-linked activity because the University of Michigan reports 53,488 students and 56,276 Ann Arbor campus-and-hospital faculty/staff headcounts, while Michigan Stadium repeatedly draws more than 100,000 attendees. These figures support institutional-account and event-dependent mechanisms, but they do not establish uniform citywide walk-in demand or permit the student, employee, event, and resident counts to be added as a single daytime-population total. [4] [6] [7] [10]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
University of Michigan campus and hospital scale supports institutional-account service demand1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
A large share of Ann Arbor housing units predates 1980, supporting age-linked repair and replacement demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Michigan Stadium creates recurring very-large event demand and operating variance near stadium and downtown trade areas3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Michigan Stadium current seating capacity: 107,601 seats [10]
- Consecutive Michigan home football games drawing more than 100,000 attendees as reported April 2026: 329 games [10]
- Scheduled 2026 stadium event dates with on-street parking restrictions listed by the City: 12 event dates [11] [3]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Large institutional customer opportunities can involve formal U-M capital-project procurement steps1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.98 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.72 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#10
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.71 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.70 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.70 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.60 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 | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.53 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.47 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.18 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- University Of Michigan Hospital Staff Headcount, November 202522,985 staff
- University Of Michigan Ann Arbor Campus And Hospital Faculty/staff Headcount, November 202556,276 faculty and staff
- University Of Michigan Ann Arbor Total Student Enrollment, Fall 202553,488 students
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #3 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Share Of Estimated Housing Units Built Before 198065 percent
- Estimated Housing Units By Year Built From Acs 2018 2022pre 1939: 8,118; 1940 1949: 2,478; 1950 1959: 5,854; 1960 1969: 9,783; 1970 1979: 8,460; 1980 1989: 6,004; 1990 1999: 6,382; 2000 2009: 3,256; additional values omitted housing units
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#10
#4 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#5 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#6 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#7 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#8 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #5–#14
#10 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#11 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#14 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #9–#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] [6] [7] [10] [11] [12] [1] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [3] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [13] [14] [7] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [17] [11] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [15] [16] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [8] [9] [7]Referral ecosystem: [7] [6] [8]Territory quality: [17] [11] [20] [6] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.4 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts | — |
| #3 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.7 pts |
| #4 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.7 pts |
| #5 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #6 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | — |
| #7 Aire Serv | — | +0.7 pts |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.6 pts |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.5 pts |
| #10 HomeSmiles | +0.5 pts | — |
| #11 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | — |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts |
| #13 Workout Anytime | +0.2 pts | — |
| #14 Tiger Adjusters | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ZOOM DRAIN led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Ann Arbor, Michigan
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.5 to 70.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.5–70.7
- Category average
- 70.6
Rainbow International Restoration70.7
PuroClean70.5
Metric registry
The 26 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 | 122,233people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census values | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Estimated households, 2020-2024 | 50,499households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census values | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 45.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census values | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated housing units by year built from ACS 2018-2022 | pre 1939: 8,118; 1940 1949: 2,478; 1950 1959: 5,854; 1960 1969: 9,783; 1970 1979: 8,460; 1980 1989: 6,004; 1990 1999: 6,382; 2000 2009: 3,256; additional values omittedhousing units | Housing year-built chart uses 2018-2022 ACS 5-year estimates; assessor mapping through 2022 | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Used in scoring | [5] [1] |
| Share of estimated housing units built before 1980 | 65percent | Housing year-built chart uses 2018-2022 ACS 5-year estimates; assessor mapping through 2022 | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Used in scoring | [5] |
| University of Michigan Ann Arbor total student enrollment, Fall 2025 | 53,488students | Fall 2025, with some referenced 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 measures | University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus | Used in scoring | [6] [2] [3] |
| Share of University of Michigan undergraduates living in U-M housing | 25percent approximate | Fall 2025, with some referenced 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 measures | University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus | Context only | [6] |
| University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus and hospital faculty/staff headcount, November 2025 | 56,276faculty and staff | Appointments as of November 1, 2025 | University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus and hospital | Used in scoring | [7] [1] |
| University of Michigan hospital staff headcount, November 2025 | 22,985staff | Appointments as of November 1, 2025 | University of Michigan Hospitals | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Michigan Stadium current seating capacity | 107,601seats | Current stadium capacity and attendance streak reported April 2026 | Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor | Supports modeled relationship | [10] |
| Consecutive Michigan home football games drawing more than 100,000 attendees as reported April 2026 | 329games | Current stadium capacity and attendance streak reported April 2026 | Michigan Stadium, Ann Arbor | Supports modeled relationship | [10] |
| Scheduled 2026 stadium event dates with on-street parking restrictions listed by the City | 12event dates | 2026 scheduled stadium events and recurring game-day restrictions | Michigan Stadium area and designated nearby streets | Conditional relationship | [11] [3] |
| City describes sustained construction activity in and around downtown between April and November 2026 with closures, lane reductions, shifting traffic patterns and reduced on-street parking | yescondition present | 2026 construction season, primarily April-November | Greater downtown Ann Arbor, roughly East Kingsley to East Hoover and Observatory to Third | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Ann Arbor-area flex vacancy rate at year-end 2025 | 13.3percent | As of December 31, 2025 | Ann Arbor area / Washtenaw County surveyed flex market | Context only | [15] [1] |
| Combined office and flex vacancy at year-end 2025 | 15.3percent | As of December 31, 2025 | Ann Arbor area / Washtenaw County surveyed office/flex market | Context only | [15] |
| Current Colliers Ann Arbor inventory includes multiple garage/flex and industrial lease listings, including sub-10,000-square-foot options | yesinventory present | Live listings accessed August 15, 2026 | Ann Arbor and nearby Washtenaw County submarkets | Context only | [16] |
| Mean hourly wages and employment shares for franchise-relevant major occupational groups, Ann Arbor MSA versus United States, May 2025 | food preparation serving: ann arbor hourly: 18.69, us hourly: 17.86, ann arbor employment share pct: 6.9; building grounds cleaning: ann arbor hourly: 19.7, us hourly: 19.66, ann arbor employment share pct: 2.3; office admin support: ann arbor hourly: 23.52, us hourly: 24.79, ann arbor employment share pct: 11; installation maintenance repair: ann arbor hourly: 30.95, us hourly: 30.44, ann arbor employment share pct: 2.7usd per hour and percent | May 2025 | Ann Arbor, MI MSA / Washtenaw County | Context only | [13] |
| Ann Arbor MSA unemployment rate, June 2026 | 4.2percent not seasonally adjusted | June 2026 | Ann Arbor, MI MSA / Washtenaw County | Context only | [14] |
| A current U-M capital-project invitation to bid required electronic submission, a mandatory pre-bid meeting for invited bidders, and prohibited proposal withdrawal for 60 days after bid opening | yescondition present | Live bid opportunities and tabulations accessed August 15, 2026 | University of Michigan capital-project procurement | Conditional relationship | [8] [9] |
| Ann Arbor energy and water benchmarking applies annually to buildings and campuses greater than 20,000 square feet | 20,000square feet threshold | 2026 reporting cycle; annual June 1 deadline | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Conditional relationship | [18] [19] |
| After the June 1, 2026 reporting deadline, the City stated it was preparing enforcement action for covered properties out of compliance | yesenforcement preparation | 2026 reporting cycle; annual June 1 deadline | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| All exterior work in Ann Arbor historic districts is regulated by the Historic District Commission and requires an application and approved Certificate of Appropriateness | yesrequirement present | Current application process and 2026 Historic District Commission schedule | Designated Ann Arbor historic districts | Conditional relationship | [20] [3] |
| Latest Planning Services fee sheet located in the research pass lists Site Plan for Planning Commission Approval with City Stormwater Review at $11,050 plus $50 per lot or per 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area | base fee usd: 11,050; multiplier usd: 50; multiplier basis: per lot OR per 1,000 sq ft of new gross floor area or fraction thereofusd | Effective July 1, 2025; updated October 1, 2025 | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Context only | [21] [2] |
| Latest Planning Services fee sheet located in the research pass lists a $600 Wetland Use Permit fee when developing on a wetland as defined in UDC 5.23.9 and 5.29.4 | 600usd | Effective July 1, 2025; updated October 1, 2025 | Ann Arbor development sites meeting the UDC wetland trigger | Context only | [21] [2] |
| New petitions submitted to the City Planning Commission beginning July 1, 2026 must post a Proposed Development Notice sign on each site frontage for covered petition types | yesrequirement present | Current 2026 application process and deadlines | Ann Arbor, Michigan | Context only | [22] |
| The 2026-2027 Ann Arbor academic calendar includes fall and winter terms plus spring and summer half terms rather than a complete summer campus shutdown | yescondition present | Academic year 2026-2027 | University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus | Context only | [12] [2] |
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 71.44 after target-market demand +1.4 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.
- 1Supplied multi-city structural operating-fit research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Estimated housing units by year built from ACS 2018-2022, University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus and hospital faculty/staff headcount, November 2025, and Ann Arbor-area flex vacancy rate at year-end 2025
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-Killers and Structural ConstraintsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: University of Michigan Ann Arbor total student enrollment, Fall 2025, Latest Planning Services fee sheet located in the research pass lists Site Plan for Planning Commission Approval with City Stormwater Review at $11,050 plus $50 per lot or per 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area, Latest Planning Services fee sheet located in the research pass lists a $600 Wetland Use Permit fee when developing on a wetland as defined in UDC 5.23.9 and 5.29.4, and The 2026-2027 Ann Arbor academic calendar includes fall and winter terms plus spring and summer half terms rather than a complete summer campus shutdown
- 3Franchise data - remake - mod neighborhood researchInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: University of Michigan Ann Arbor total student enrollment, Fall 2025, Scheduled 2026 stadium event dates with on-street parking restrictions listed by the City, and All exterior work in Ann Arbor historic districts is regulated by the Historic District Commission and requires an application and approved Certificate of Appropriateness
- 4QuickFacts: Ann Arbor city, Michigan
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Estimated households, 2020-2024, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024
- 5Comprehensive Land Use Plan Appendix
Used for: Estimated housing units by year built from ACS 2018-2022 and Share of estimated housing units built before 1980
- 6Ann Arbor Campus Snapshot - Fall 2025
Used for: University of Michigan Ann Arbor total student enrollment, Fall 2025 and Share of University of Michigan undergraduates living in U-M housing
- 7University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Faculty and Staff Headcount Summary
Used for: University of Michigan Ann Arbor campus and hospital faculty/staff headcount, November 2025 and University of Michigan hospital staff headcount, November 2025
- 8Out to Bid
Used for: A current U-M capital-project invitation to bid required electronic submission, a mandatory pre-bid meeting for invited bidders, and prohibited proposal withdrawal for 60 days after bid opening
- 9Invitation for Bid: Palmer Commons Second and Third Floor Renovation
Used for: A current U-M capital-project invitation to bid required electronic submission, a mandatory pre-bid meeting for invited bidders, and prohibited proposal withdrawal for 60 days after bid opening
- 10Michigan Athletics to Celebrate 100th Anniversary of Michigan Stadium in 2027
Used for: Michigan Stadium current seating capacity and Consecutive Michigan home football games drawing more than 100,000 attendees as reported April 2026
- 11Game Day in Ann Arbor
Used for: Scheduled 2026 stadium event dates with on-street parking restrictions listed by the City
- 12University of Michigan Academic Calendar 2026-2027 - Ann Arbor Campus
Used for: The 2026-2027 Ann Arbor academic calendar includes fall and winter terms plus spring and summer half terms rather than a complete summer campus shutdown
- 13Occupational Employment and Wages in Ann Arbor - May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages and employment shares for franchise-relevant major occupational groups, Ann Arbor MSA versus United States, May 2025
- 14Michigan regional unemployment rates decline in June
Used for: Ann Arbor MSA unemployment rate, June 2026
- 152025 Year-End Vacancy Report: Ann Arbor Office/Flex Market
Used for: Ann Arbor-area flex vacancy rate at year-end 2025 and Combined office and flex vacancy at year-end 2025
- 16Garage / Flex Properties
Used for: Current Colliers Ann Arbor inventory includes multiple garage/flex and industrial lease listings, including sub-10,000-square-foot options
- 17Stay Informed as Ann Arbor Plans for Busy Road Construction Season
Used for: City describes sustained construction activity in and around downtown between April and November 2026 with closures, lane reductions, shifting traffic patterns and reduced on-street parking
- 18Energy and Water Benchmarking and Disclosure Ordinance
Used for: Ann Arbor energy and water benchmarking applies annually to buildings and campuses greater than 20,000 square feet and After the June 1, 2026 reporting deadline, the City stated it was preparing enforcement action for covered properties out of compliance
- 19Ann Arbor's Energy & Water Benchmarking Reaches Compliance Milestone, Launches Public Map
Used for: Ann Arbor energy and water benchmarking applies annually to buildings and campuses greater than 20,000 square feet
- 20Historic Preservation Applications
Used for: All exterior work in Ann Arbor historic districts is regulated by the Historic District Commission and requires an application and approved Certificate of Appropriateness
- 21Planning Services Planning Review Fees - FY26
Used for: Latest Planning Services fee sheet located in the research pass lists Site Plan for Planning Commission Approval with City Stormwater Review at $11,050 plus $50 per lot or per 1,000 square feet of new gross floor area and Latest Planning Services fee sheet located in the research pass lists a $600 Wetland Use Permit fee when developing on a wetland as defined in UDC 5.23.9 and 5.29.4
- 22Development Review
Used for: New petitions submitted to the City Planning Commission beginning July 1, 2026 must post a Proposed Development Notice sign on each site frontage for covered petition types
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.