Most impactful relationship #1
Local condition410,053Population growth since 2020
Operating exposureBroad population and household growth
8 of 14 concepts affected57% of concepts assessed
HomeSmilesMister Sparky ElectricAire ServMr. Rooter+4
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Aurora, Colorado
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Aurora and see how 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 shaped...
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
Bottom line
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors ranks first among the concepts assessed for Aurora, Colorado
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Aurora's local operating conditions. Aurora's 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to broad population and household growth. [1] [2] The $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations across Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colorado metropolitan statistical area created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to high local occupational wage cost environment. [6]
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors scored 71.00. It leads Mr. Rooter by 0.28 points. The documented moved since previous year in Aurora is 15.6% moved since the previous year. For Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.90 points through high housing turnover and occupancy change. [3] 62.4% owner-occupied of housing in Aurora is owner occupied. For Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, this was the largest negative contribution, reducing the score by 0.33 points through low homeownership concentration. [1] [2] The largest direct difference versus Mr. Rooter came from Aurora's 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year, which contributed +0.90 points to Pillar To Post Home Inspectors versus 0.00 points to Mr. Rooter. [3]
Evidence chain
- Local condition: The documented moved since previous year in Aurora is 15.6% moved since the previous year. [3]
- Why it matters to this model: Pillar To Post Home Inspectors's operating model demand scales materially with moves, leases, property transfers, household turnover, or occupancy changes across the housing stock, giving it direct exposure to high housing turnover and occupancy change.
- Modeled consequence: The model assigned +0.90 points through high housing turnover and occupancy change.
What this means: this is a deterministic comparison of documented local conditions against resolved operating-model exposures. It is not an earnings forecast, investment recommendation, or franchise-quality rating.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed scoring values use two decimal places. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 71.00Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.90 pts15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year | -0.33 pts62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 2 | Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source | 70.72Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.79 ptsAverage hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS… | -0.40 pts$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S | High evidence confidence |
| 3 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 70.62Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.79 ptsAverage hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS… | -0.40 pts$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S | High evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesRecurring Property MaintenanceInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 Item 7 source | 70.26Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.85 pts410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base… | -0.37 pts62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVACInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 Item 7 source | 70.19Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.66 pts410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base… | -0.41 pts$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S | High evidence confidence |
| 6 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services | 70.13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.73 pts410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base… | -0.40 pts62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 7 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 70.10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.20 pts10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial… | -0.10 pts$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S | High evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 69.82Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive scored relationship | -0.18 pts$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S | High evidence confidence |
| 9 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 69.72Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive scored relationship | -0.28 pts10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial… | High evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 69.72Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.16 pts410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base… | -0.29 pts62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
Cross-concept impact analysis
The local conditions that moved scores most
A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.
Most impactful relationship #2
Local condition$21.46Food preparation and serving mean hourly…
Operating exposureHigh local occupational wage cost environ…
13 of 14 concepts affected93% of concepts assessed
Aire ServMr. RooterZOOM DRAINMister Sparky Electric+9
Most impactful relationship #3
Local condition62.4%Owner-occupied housing share
Operating exposureLow homeownership concentration
9 of 14 concepts affected64% of concepts assessed
Mister Sparky ElectricHomeSmilesPillar To Post Home InspectorsAire Serv+5
Most impactful relationship #4
Local condition136Drinking-water hardness
Operating exposureHard-water scale and mineral exposure
8 of 14 concepts affected57% of concepts assessed
Mr. RooterZOOM DRAINAire ServMister Sparky Electric+4
Most impactful relationship #5
Local condition15.3%Under-65 uninsured share
Operating exposureLow insured-population access
1 of 14 concepts affected7% of concepts assessed
Rainbow International Restoration
Details for 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 × Broad population and household growth
Relationship #1410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 Broad population and household growth
Aurora evidence410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base [1] [2]15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share
- Colorado population change 2020-2025
- 4.1%
- Difference
- +2.1 percentage points
Model exposureBroad population and household growth
Most relevant modeled attributes: scheduled residential service, recurring residential demand, and housing turnover dependency.
Average effect+0.55 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence4.379 ptsLargest single effect+0.85 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance+0.85 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services+0.73 pts
Aire ServHVAC+0.66 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services+0.66 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection+0.62 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services+0.55 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy+0.16 pts
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness+0.15 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S × High local occupational wage cost environment
Relationship #2$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S High local occupational wage cost environment
Aurora evidence$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. [6]15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share
- United States mean hourly wage
- $17.86/hour
- Difference
- +3.6 USD per hour
Model exposureHigh local occupational wage cost environment
Most relevant modeled attributes: skilled trade labor, technical labor, and administrative labor.
Average effect-0.26 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence3.370 ptsLargest single effect-0.41 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Aire ServHVAC-0.41 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services-0.40 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services-0.40 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services-0.34 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance-0.32 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection-0.29 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration-0.27 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration-0.27 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics-0.18 pts
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness-0.15 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy-0.15 pts
City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management-0.10 pts
JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting Training-0.07 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share × Low homeownership concentration
Relationship #362.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share Low homeownership concentration
Aurora evidence62.4% owner-occupied [1] [2]15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share
- Colorado owner-occupied share
- 66.2%
- Difference
- -3.8 percentage points
Model exposureLow homeownership concentration
Most relevant modeled attributes: homeownership dependency.
Average effect-0.31 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence2.823 ptsLargest single effect-0.40 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services-0.40 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance-0.37 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection-0.33 pts
Aire ServHVAC-0.33 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services-0.33 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services-0.33 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy-0.29 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration-0.22 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration-0.22 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the… × Hard-water scale and mineral exposure
Relationship #4Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the… Hard-water scale and mineral exposure
Aurora evidenceAverage hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. [15] [16]15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share
- USGS upper bound for moderately hard water (current USGS classification)
- 120 mg per L as CaCO3
- Difference
- +16 mg per L as CaCO3
Model exposureHard-water scale and mineral exposure
Most relevant modeled attributes: plumbing service, property age demand sensitivity, and hvac service.
Average effect+0.30 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence2.416 ptsLargest single effect+0.79 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services+0.79 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services+0.79 pts
Aire ServHVAC+0.27 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services+0.15 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration+0.11 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration+0.11 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection+0.11 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance+0.09 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Details for 15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share × Low insured-population access
Relationship #515.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share Low insured-population access
Aurora evidence15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured [1] [2]15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share
- Colorado under-65 uninsured share
- 9.3%
- Difference
- +6.0 percentage points
Model exposureLow insured-population access
Most relevant modeled attributes: insured population dependency.
Average effect-0.96 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence0.958 ptsLargest single effect-0.96 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration-0.96 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Open evidence chain
Modeled evidence traces
Why the same Aurora conditions affect franchise models differently
Each trace follows one documented local condition through resolved operating-model exposure, exact score contribution, and the resulting modeled difference. Open either image for the full-size analytical view.
Why the ranking came out this way
Why the top concepts are nearly tied
The comparison, score path, and counterfactual below all use the same contribution ledger as the published ranking.
Head-to-head
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors vs. Mr. Rooter
The modeled gap is small enough that the two concepts should be treated as a leading cluster rather than a decisive first and second place.
| Modeled relationship | Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | Mr. Rooter | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year [3] | +0.90 pts | 0.00 pts | +0.90 pts |
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness [15] [16] | +0.11 pts | +0.79 pts | -0.69 pts |
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations [6] | -0.29 pts | -0.40 pts | +0.11 pts |
Aurora's 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +0.90 points for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors versus 0.00 points for Mr. Rooter. [3]
How to interpret the leading cluster
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter, and ZOOM DRAIN gained more than the rest of the field from Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness and 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors and ZOOM DRAIN when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality. [15] [16] [1] [2]
Contribution path
Contribution path for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Baseline70.00Final71.00Net change+1.00 pts
Scored local driverRelationship effectScore after driver
15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year [3]High housing turnover and occupancy change
+0.90 pts
70.90
410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 [1] [2]Broad population and household growth
+0.62 pts
71.52
-0.33 pts
71.19
$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations [6]High local occupational wage cost environment
-0.29 pts
70.89
View the full score ledger for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.19 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.11 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.29 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.998 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.00 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Inside the analysis workflow
The analytical system behind the report
Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.
14Concepts evaluated
34Local sources used
29Primary local sources
27Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when the available operating-model evidence supported a deterministic local-sensitivity profile. Brand participation in our referral network does not affect the score.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
70.67 average across 2 concepts
0.30 points average among 8 affected concepts
0.26 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Aurora, Colorado
Broad population and household growth
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.55 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020. [1] [2]
High local occupational wage cost environment
This relationship affected 13 concepts and reduced 0.26 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations. [6]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Broad population and household growth1 local fact · 1 modeled effect · 2 sources
Low insured-population access1 local fact · 1 modeled effect · 2 sources
High housing turnover and occupancy change1 local fact · 1 modeled effect · 1 source
High housing turnover and occupancy changeTarget-market demand
- 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year [3]
Low homeownership concentration1 local fact · 1 modeled effect · 2 sources
High local occupational wage cost environment1 local fact · 1 modeled effect · 1 source
High local occupational wage cost environmentLabor and staffing friction
- $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations [6]
Professional and office-worker concentration1 modeled effect
Professional and office-worker concentrationTarget-market demand
Hard-water scale and mineral exposure1 local fact · 1 modeled effect · 2 sources
Grease interceptor/trap requirement1 modeled effect
Grease interceptor/trap requirementRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see every material score-changing relationship, with factor net shown only as secondary context; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.00
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.90 pts 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous yearConstraint -0.33 pts 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+1.62 pts
Constraints-0.62 pts
Net local movement+0.998 pts
Final score71.00
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year+0.90 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+1.19 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous yearLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #1 to #6 without this driver. | +0.90 pts | HighEvidence |
| 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 | +0.62 pts | HighEvidence |
| 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | -0.33 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.29 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.29 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.11 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness | +0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.998 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Additional brand source material assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.19 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.11 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.29 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.998 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.00 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.19 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.72
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.79 pts Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS…Constraint -0.40 pts $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+1.45 pts
Constraints-0.73 pts
Net local movement+0.721 pts
Final score70.72
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driverAverage hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness+0.79 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.33 pts
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.79 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardnessLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #2 to #5 without this driver. | +0.79 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.40 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.721 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate constraintCorridor or highway construction disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Potential candidate constraintCommercial-vehicle route or access restrictionsTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.33 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.79 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.40 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.721 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.72 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.79 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.62
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.79 pts Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS…Constraint -0.40 pts $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+1.35 pts
Constraints-0.73 pts
Net local movement+0.618 pts
Final score70.62
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driverAverage hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness+0.79 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.23 pts
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.79 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardnessLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #3 to #7 without this driver. | +0.79 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.40 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.618 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate constraintCorridor or highway construction disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.23 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.79 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.40 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.618 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.62 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.79 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.26
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.85 pts 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base…Constraint -0.37 pts 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.94 pts
Constraints-0.68 pts
Net local movement+0.255 pts
Final score70.26
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020+0.85 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.49 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.32 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.32 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.09 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.255 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.49 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.09 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.32 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.255 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.26 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.49 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.19
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.66 pts 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base…Constraint -0.41 pts $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.93 pts
Constraints-0.74 pts
Net local movement+0.187 pts
Final score70.19
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020+0.66 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.33 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.41 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.27 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness | +0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.187 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate constraintCommercial-vehicle route or access restrictionsTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Additional brand source material assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.33 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.27 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.41 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.187 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.19 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.41 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.13
Mister Sparky Electric
Advantage +0.73 pts 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base…Constraint -0.40 pts 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.87 pts
Constraints-0.75 pts
Net local movement+0.125 pts
Final score70.13
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020+0.73 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.32 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.34 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.34 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.15 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.125 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate constraintCorridor or highway construction disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.32 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.15 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.34 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.125 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.13 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.34 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.10
City Wide Facility Solutions
Advantage +0.20 pts 10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial…Constraint -0.10 pts $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.20 pts
Constraints-0.10 pts
Net local movement+0.099 pts
Final score70.10
2 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial operations employment share+0.20 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.20 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial operations employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #7 without this driver. | +0.20 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.10 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement+0.099 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.20 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.099 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.10 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.20 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.82
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285 · Item 7 evidence below
No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.18 pts $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages0.00 pts
Constraints-0.18 pts
Net local movement-0.180 pts
Final score69.82
1 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations-0.18 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.18 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #11 without this driver. | -0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.180 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Additional brand source material assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | 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 | -0.18 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.820 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.82 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.18 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.72
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513 · Item 7 evidence below
No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.28 pts 10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial…
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages0.00 pts
Constraints-0.28 pts
Net local movement-0.276 pts
Final score69.72
1 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 1 constraint.
Largest individual score driver10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial operations employment share-0.28 pts
Factor
Sales and customer acquisition
Factor subtotal-0.28 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial operations employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #9 without this driver. | -0.28 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.276 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.28 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.724 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.72 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Sales and customer acquisition -0.28 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.72
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.16 pts 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base…Constraint -0.29 pts 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.16 pts
Constraints-0.44 pts
Net local movement-0.282 pts
Final score69.72
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share-0.29 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal-0.13 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.15 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.282 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Additional brand source material assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.13 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.15 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.718 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.72 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.15 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.70
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.15 pts 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base…Constraint -0.21 pts Grease interceptors are required for food-preparation establishments…
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.15 pts
Constraints-0.45 pts
Net local movement-0.303 pts
Final score69.70
4 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 3 constraints.
Largest individual score driverGrease interceptors are required for food-preparation establishments and other listed FOG-generating uses, subject to a feasibility variance process. grease-interceptor requirement for food-preparation establishments-0.21 pts
Factor
Regulatory and operating friction
Factor subtotal-0.30 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Grease interceptors are required for food-preparation establishments and other listed FOG-generating uses, subject to a feasibility variance process. grease-interceptor requirement for food-preparation establishmentsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #9 without this driver. | -0.21 pts | HighEvidence |
| Required backflow assemblies must be tested upon installation and at least annually by a certified technician. backflow-prevention testing requirement | -0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.15 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal+0.15 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020 | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.303 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate constraintWetland, runoff and stormwater mitigation requirementsRegulatory and operating friction
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.15 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.15 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.30 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.697 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.70 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Regulatory and operating friction -0.30 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.62
JAN-PRO International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500 · Item 7 evidence below
No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.30 pts 10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial…
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages0.00 pts
Constraints-0.38 pts
Net local movement-0.376 pts
Final score69.62
2 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial operations employment share-0.30 pts
Factor
Sales and customer acquisition
Factor subtotal-0.30 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 10.5% of metro employment vs 6.8% nationally business and financial operations employment shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #12 without this driver. | -0.30 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.07 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.376 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | 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 | -0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.30 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.624 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.62 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Sales and customer acquisition -0.30 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.62
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.11 pts Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS…Constraint -0.27 pts $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.11 pts
Constraints-0.50 pts
Net local movement-0.382 pts
Final score69.62
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints.
Largest individual score driver$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations-0.27 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.27 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #13 to #8 without this driver. | -0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal-0.22 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share | -0.22 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.11 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness | +0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-0.382 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate advantageExpansive-clay and soil-movement exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Potential candidate constraintCommercial-vehicle route or access restrictionsTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Potential candidate constraintCorridor or highway construction disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.22 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.11 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.27 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.618 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.62 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.27 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.66
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900 · Item 7 evidence below
Advantage +0.11 pts Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS…Constraint -0.96 pts 15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.11 pts
Constraints-1.45 pts
Net local movement-1.339 pts
Final score68.66
4 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 3 constraints.
Largest individual score driver15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured under-65 uninsured share-0.96 pts
Factor
Target-market demand
Factor subtotal-1.18 pts
Factor
Labor and staffing friction
Factor subtotal-0.27 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations | -0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
Factor
Property replacement-cycle demand
Factor subtotal+0.11 pts
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness | +0.11 pts | HighEvidence |
Overall local score movement-1.339 ptsThis is the accounting total after all factor subtotals and model controls.
Potential candidate-specific adjustmentsThese relationships depend on territory, site, customer mix, project, or another candidate-specific selection. They stay outside the baseline city score until that selection is known; the model should then be rerun to produce the candidate-adjusted score.
Potential candidate advantageExpansive-clay and soil-movement exposureProperty replacement-cycle demand
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Potential candidate constraintCommercial-vehicle route or access restrictionsTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Potential candidate constraintCorridor or highway construction disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Applicability depends on candidate-specific site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -1.18 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.11 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.27 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.661 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.66 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Strong
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- High evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -1.18 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #14 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.15 pts
Average across all concepts+0.12 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Population Growth Since 2020410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base
- Owner Occupied Housing Share62.4% owner-occupied
- Under 65 Uninsured Share15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection
+1.19 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance
+0.49 pts
Aire ServHVAC
+0.33 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services
+0.33 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services
+0.32 pts
Concepts challenged most
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration
-1.18 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration
-0.22 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy
-0.13 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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.30 pts
Average across all concepts+0.17 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Drinking Water HardnessAverage hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average.
Concepts helped most
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services
+0.79 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services
+0.79 pts
Aire ServHVAC
+0.27 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services
+0.15 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration
+0.11 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #13 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.26 pts
Average across all concepts-0.24 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Food Preparation And Serving Mean Hourly Wage$21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S.
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC
-0.41 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services
-0.40 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services
-0.40 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services
-0.34 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance
-0.32 pts
Observed model effectEvidence incomplete
Sales and customer acquisition
We weighed the size of the prospect pool against local digital competition and the length of the relevant sales cycle.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. JAN-PRO International moved from #12 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected-0.29 pts
Average across all concepts-0.04 pts
Concepts changing rank5
Concepts challenged most
JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting Training
-0.30 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness Coaching
-0.28 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 1 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #11 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted1 of 14
Average among affected-0.30 pts
Average across all concepts-0.02 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness
-0.30 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#2 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#3 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#5 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#7 City Wide Facility SolutionsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#8 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#9 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#11 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#12 JAN-PRO InternationalStable · tested #12–#13
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#14 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Net factor impact
Net factor totals across the highest-ranked concepts
This graph plots net factor totals for the top 14 concepts. A near-zero net can contain meaningful positive and negative scored relationships that offset each other; those underlying drivers remain visible in each franchise's expanded score explanation.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [6] [8] [23] [1] [2] [3] [25] [5] [4] [24]Property replacement-cycle demand: [20] [19] [15] [21] [27] [16]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [6] [8] [1] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [13] [1] [2] [5] [30] [22]Real estate and site feasibility: [12]Referral ecosystem: [6] [23] [3] [5] [33] [34] [24]Territory quality: [13] [1]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [10] [18] [12] [11] [15] [14] [6] [9] [1] [2] [21] [29] [28] [31] [32] [16]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Sales and customer acquisition | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.20 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #2 Mr. Rooter | +0.30 pts | +0.80 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #3 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.20 pts | +0.80 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +0.50 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #5 Aire Serv | +0.30 pts | +0.30 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #6 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.30 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #7 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.20 pts | — | -0.10 pts | — | — |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | — | — | -0.20 pts | — | — |
| #9 ActionCOACH | — | — | — | -0.30 pts | — |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | -0.10 pts | — | -0.10 pts | — | — |
| #11 Workout Anytime | +0.10 pts | — | -0.20 pts | — | -0.30 pts |
| #12 JAN-PRO International | — | — | -0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — |
| #13 PuroClean | -0.20 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #14 Rainbow International Restoration | -1.20 pts | +0.10 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the leading cluster
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter, and ZOOM DRAIN gained more than the rest of the field from Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness and 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base population growth since 2020. The ordering is assumption-sensitive for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors and ZOOM DRAIN when individual factors are neutralized and the model is rerun. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Aurora, Colorado
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.67Limited comparison: Plumbing & Drain Services franchise opportunities assessed in Aurora, Colorado
2 Plumbing & Drain Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.62 to 70.72. Mr. Rooter ranked highest at 70.72. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.79 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.40 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.10-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.62–70.72
- Category average
- 70.67
Mr. Rooter70.72
ZOOM DRAIN70.62
Limited two-concept comparison
69.14Limited comparison: Property Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Aurora, Colorado
2 Property Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.66 to 69.62. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.62. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.11 points on average among the affected concepts. Target-market demand reduced the exposed concepts by 0.70 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.96-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.66–69.62
- Category average
- 69.14
PuroClean69.62
Rainbow International Restoration68.66
Metric registry
The 27 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population growth since 2020 | 410,053 residents in 2025; +6.2% from the 2020 estimates base | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 2,412.2 people per square mile | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 145,310 households | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 62.4% owner-occupied | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 37.6% renter-occupied | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Detached single-family housing share | 53.3% of housing units are 1-unit detached structures | 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Housing in buildings with two or more units | 34.0% of housing units are in buildings with two or more units | 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [5] |
| Median year structure built | Median year built: 1985 | 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $469,100 median owner-occupied home value | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $88,368 median household income | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Poverty share | 11.9% of persons in poverty | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Moved since previous year | 15.6% moved since the previous year | 2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Population under age 18 | 23.9% under age 18 | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Supports modeled relationship | [1] [2] |
| Population age 65 and older | 12.4% age 65 or older | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 8.6% of people under 65 report a disability | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 15.3% of people under 65 are uninsured | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Civilian labor-force participation rate | 71.3% labor-force participation among population age 16+ | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Households with broadband subscription | 93.6% of households have broadband | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean travel time to work | 28.6 minutes mean travel time to work | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Supports modeled relationship | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $17,730 retail sales per capita | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Accommodation and food-services sales | $1.459 billion accommodation and food-services sales | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Context only | [1] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | $5.633 billion health care and social assistance receipts/revenue | 2020-2025 / 2022 / 2020-2024 | Aurora, Colorado | Supports modeled relationship | [1] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $21.46/hour vs $17.86 U.S. | May 2025 | Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colorado metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $21.87/hour vs $19.66 U.S. | May 2025 | Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colorado metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [6] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $33.00/hour vs $31.42 U.S. | May 2025 | Denver-Aurora-Centennial, Colorado metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [6] |
| Applicable statutory minimum wage | $15.16/hour Colorado minimum wage where no local minimum wage applies | 2026 | Colorado | Context only | [9] |
| Drinking-water hardness | Average hardness 136 mg/L as CaCO3 (range 87-198), within the USGS hard-water band at the average. | 2026 | Aurora Water service area | Used in scoring | [15] [16] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply broadly applicable effects
Apply fully supported relationships at full weight and otherwise scoreable research- or taxonomy-gated relationships at a reduced provisional weight.
Preserve candidate-dependent effects
Keep territory-, site-, customer-, project-, or configuration-dependent relationships outside the baseline score until the relevant candidate selections are known.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.00 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In Aurora, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 70.998. Target-market demand netted to +1.19 points after 15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous year was partly offset by 62.4% owner-occupied owner-occupied housing share. [3] [1] [2] Labor and staffing friction totaled -0.29 points, led by $21.46/hour vs $17.86 u.s. mean wage for food preparation and serving occupations at -0.29 points. [6] Property replacement-cycle demand totaled +0.11 points, led by average hardness 136 mg/l as caco3 (range 87-198), within the usgs hard-water band at the average. drinking-water hardness at +0.11 points. [15] [16]
The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Score calibration
How relationship effects become score adjustments
Each score-changing relationship starts with its model-defined maximum effect. The documented city-condition strength and the franchise's weighted operating exposure scale that maximum. Evidence confidence, provenance, geographic applicability, and the profile-confidence multiplier then modify the pre-cap effect. Fully supported relationships use full weight; broadly applicable relationships held back only by research or taxonomy-review gates use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-dependent site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections remain outside the baseline score until resolved. Correlation and score caps can reduce the resulting magnitude before the final contribution is added to the common baseline.
Local condition15.6% moved since the previous year [3]15.6% moved since the previous year moved since previous yearStrength 0.550 / 1.000
Operating exposureHigh housing turnover and occupancy changePillar To Post Home Inspectors weighted operating exposureExposure 0.696 / 1.000
Model calibration+3.00 pts ceilingEvidence/applicability ×0.978 · pre-cap +0.90 ptsRelationship-specific maximum
Score effect+0.90 ptsNo post-calibration control reduced this relationshipOpen evidence chain
Worked-example calibration inputsActual model values, not generic point bands
City-condition strength0.550 / 1.000
Operating exposure0.696 / 1.000
Evidence & applicability×0.978
Relationship ceiling3.000 pts
The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.00–100.00
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.00–<80.00
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.00–<72.00
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.00–<64.00
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelPotential candidate-specific adjustmentNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model history
Model updates are versioned and dated, documenting material changes to scoring, evidence handling, methodology, governance, and presentation across published reports.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1QuickFacts: Aurora city, Colorado
Used for: Population growth since 2020, Population density, Household count, Owner-occupied housing share, and Renter-occupied housing share
- 2QuickFacts: Colorado
Used for: Population growth since 2020, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Median owner-occupied home value, and Median household income
- 3Aurora, CO profile — ACS 2024 1-year
Used for: Moved since previous year
- 4Aurora, Colorado demographic profile derived from ACS
Used for: Detached single-family housing share and Median year structure built
- 5Aurora, Colorado housing and commuting profile derived from ACS
Used for: Housing in buildings with two or more units
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Denver-Aurora-Centennial — May 2025
Used for: Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations, and Construction and extraction mean hourly wage
- 7
- 8
- 9INFO #19: Local Minimum Wages
Used for: Applicable statutory minimum wage
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15Drinking Water Quality — 2026 Water Quality Report data
Used for: Drinking-water hardness
- 16Hardness of Water
Used for: Drinking-water hardness
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- 30
- 31
- 32
- 33
- 34
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.