70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Chandler, Arizona
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Chandler, Arizona. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
26Sources used
21Primary sources
30Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.9 points average among 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Chandler, Arizona
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and Jan-Pro International produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.9 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #13 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Chandler, Arizona
Concentrated employment districts support local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Business and job concentration in Chandler's five designated employment/business districts: district count: 5; businesses: 2,868; jobs: 99,080; share of city jobs percent: 75; total city jobs: 132,070 mixed business and job metrics. [7] [10]
asset-light-b2b
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [10] [7] [8]
Employment density varies sharply across Chandler business districts
The operating effect depends on the offered franchise territory, proposed site or service base, customer trade area, and route geometry; citywide employment totals cannot resolve those boundaries. [9] [8]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Concentrated employment districts support local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Recent housing additions support incremental household-service demand despite near build-out1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large pre-2000 housing cohort supports a midlife building-system replacement cycle1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Active Loop 202 widening can disrupt route timing and site access along affected segments1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.62 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.56 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.56 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.23 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.89 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.89 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.81 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.75 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.75 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.60 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.45 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.30 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #2 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Census Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20251 percent
- City Housing Unit Estimate On July 1, 2026115,161 housing units
- Share Of Chandler Reported As Built Out In February 202594 percent
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #10 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Residential Buildings Reported As Built Before 200060.1 percent
- Median Residential Building Vintage Reported For 20211,996 year
- Median Year Of Major Residential Building Improvements Permitted, Reported For 20211,998 year
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#2 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #5–#8
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#7 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#11 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #12–#12
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#14 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [2] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [11] [12] [13] [4] [2]Competitive environment: [4] [5] [7] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [14] [15] [1] [8] [10]Transportation, routing, and parking: [19] [20] [21] [1] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [16] [17] [18] [8] [22] [26] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [22] [7] [8] [3]Referral ecosystem: [8] [10] [7] [2]Territory quality: [7] [8] [9] [16] [17] [19] [20]Regulatory and operating friction: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [21] [1] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.8 pts | — |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +1.6 pts | — |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +1.6 pts | — |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +1.4 pts | — |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.2 pts | — |
| #6 Aire Serv | +0.5 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +0.5 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.5 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — |
| #12 Workout Anytime | +0.2 pts | — |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts |
| #14 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Chandler, Arizona
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Chandler, Arizona
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.1. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.1–70.1
- Category average
- 70.1
PuroClean70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
Metric registry
The 30 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City population estimate on July 1, 2026 | 293,230people | Population and housing estimates as of July 1, 2026 | Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [4] |
| Census population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 278,748people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; April 1, 2020 estimate base; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [5] |
| Census population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; April 1, 2020 estimate base; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [5] |
| City housing-unit estimate on July 1, 2026 | 115,161housing units | Population and housing estimates as of July 1, 2026 | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Share of Chandler reported as built out in February 2025 | 94percent | Chandler build-out and housing-development conditions reported in February 2025 | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing units reported built in Chandler since 2016 | minimum: 12,048housing units | Chandler build-out and housing-development conditions reported in February 2025 | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Business and job concentration in Chandler's five designated employment/business districts | district count: 5; businesses: 2,868; jobs: 99,080; share of city jobs percent: 75; total city jobs: 132,070mixed business and job metrics | Maricopa Association of Governments 2025 Employer Database | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Price Corridor business, employment, employer, and real-estate scale | businesses: 783; jobs: 41,620; square miles: 5.7; office sqft: 6,400,000; industrial flex sqft: 7,400,000; retail sqft: 3,400,000; notable employer headcounts: Intel: 10,000, Wells Fargo: 5,500, Bank of America: 3,600, Northrop Grumman: 1,700, Microchip Technology: 1,700mixed district metrics | Employer counts from current city page; commercial real estate mix sourced by city to CoStar July 2024 | Price Corridor, Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [8] [2] |
| Airpark Area business and employment scale | businesses: 506; jobs: 14,470; square miles: 9mixed district metrics | Current city district profile; employment data aligned with MAG 2025 Employer Database | Airpark Area, Chandler, Arizona | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Job-density comparison between Price Corridor and Airpark Area | price corridor jobs per sq mile: 7,302; airpark jobs per sq mile: 1,608; price to airpark ratio: 4.54jobs per square mile and ratio | Employer counts from current city page; commercial real estate mix sourced by city to CoStar July 2024 | Price Corridor versus Airpark Area, Chandler, Arizona | Conditional relationship | [8] [9] |
| Named financial-services employers with substantial Chandler workforces | Wells Fargo employees approx: 5,500; Bank of America employees approx: 3,600; GM Financial employees approx: 800employees approximate | Current named-employer profile accessed August 2026; individual employer counts may reflect different update dates | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Residential buildings reported as built before 2000 | 60.1percent | Primary housing-age inputs use 2017-2021 ACS five-year estimates and 2021 ATTOM property data | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Median residential building vintage reported for 2021 | 1,996year | Primary housing-age inputs use 2017-2021 ACS five-year estimates and 2021 ATTOM property data | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Median year of major residential building improvements permitted, reported for 2021 | 1,998year | Primary housing-age inputs use 2017-2021 ACS five-year estimates and 2021 ATTOM property data | Chandler, Arizona | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Chandler drinking-water hardness range and citywide average | low: 5; high: 20; average: 16.5grains per gallon | Current drinking-water parameters accessed August 2026 | City of Chandler drinking-water system | Context only | [12] [2] |
| Late-July 2026 Extreme Heat Warning including Chandler | afternoon temperature low f: 105; afternoon temperature high f: 118; heat risk: Majordegrees fahrenheit and heat risk | Extreme Heat Warning in effect in late July 2026 | South-central Arizona including Chandler | Context only | [13] [2] |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler major occupational mean hourly wages versus U.S. averages | all occupations: metro: 33.48, us: 33.54; food preparation serving: metro: 20.58, us: 17.86; building grounds cleaning maintenance: metro: 19.59, us: 19.66; office administrative support: metro: 24.97, us: 24.79; construction extraction: metro: 29.42, us: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: metro: 29.88, us: 30.44; production: metro: 25.08, us: 24.81; transportation material moving: metro: 24.38, us: 23.96usd per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates; release reissued June 24, 2026 for sample metadata correction | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [14] |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler unemployment rate in May 2026 | metro rate: 4.1; arizona rate: 4.7percent not seasonally adjusted | May 2026, not seasonally adjusted | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [15] |
| Kidder Mathews Chandler industrial submarket conditions in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 23,832,569; direct vacancy percent: 7; total vacancy percent: 7.4; q2 direct net absorption sqft: 237,571; ytd direct net absorption sqft: 153,598; under construction sqft: 315,961; q2 leasing activity sqft: 232,401; average direct rent usd per sqft month nnn: 1.43mixed industrial market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Kidder Mathews Chandler industrial submarket | Context only | [16] |
| Kidder Mathews Chandler office submarket conditions in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 7,321,006; total vacancy percent: 22.6; total available percent: 28.4; q2 direct net absorption sqft: 88,556; q2 leasing activity sqft: 88,207; average direct rent usd per sqft year full service: 34.06; east valley vacancy percent: 23.3; east valley average direct rent usd per sqft year full service: 33.52mixed office market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Kidder Mathews Chandler office submarket | Context only | [17] |
| West Chandler industrial vacancy and announced speculative supply | west chandler vacancy percent: 6.2; phoenix metro vacancy percent: 11.4; announced speculative industrial sqft minimum: 180,000percent and square feet | June 2026 project announcement using current CoStar vacancy comparison | West Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [18] |
| Active Loop 202 Santan Freeway widening affecting Chandler access | completion scheduled: 2027; lanes added price to gilbert each direction: 2; lanes added gilbert to val vista each direction: 1; scope includes ramp widening: yesproject scope | Active project schedule accessed August 2026; completion scheduled in 2027 | Loop 202 Santan Freeway, Price Road to Val Vista Drive; Chandler applicability limited to Chandler routes and access | Conditional relationship | [19] [1] [3] |
| Maximum planned ramp-closure durations for Loop 202 widening work | freeway entrance exit ramp up to consecutive days: 60; loop101 loop202 connector ramp up to consecutive days: 15days | Active project schedule accessed August 2026; completion scheduled in 2027 | Loop 202 Santan Freeway, Price Road to Val Vista Drive; Chandler applicability limited to Chandler routes and access | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Current and scheduled Lindsay Road construction restrictions in southeast Chandler | source status date: 2026-07-31; scheduled 2026 08 17 segment: Chandler Heights Road to Riggs Road; scheduled lanes: one lane in each direction on west side; left turns: restricted; other current segment: Ocotillo Road to Chandler Heights Road; other current condition: lane restriction/traffic shift as neededproject access conditions | Current construction information dated July 31, 2026, with restrictions scheduled during August 2026 | Lindsay Road, Ocotillo Road to Hunt Highway, Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [20] [1] [3] |
| Alma School Road multi-phase project current restriction status | phase 1: completed 2021; phase 2 construction scheduled: FY 2025/26; current road closures or traffic restrictions: none stated on current city road-construction portal; phase 3: outside 10-year CIPproject status | Current project status accessed August 2026 | Alma School Road, Chandler, Arizona | Context only | [21] [1] |
| Temporary banner display rule and nonresidential for-lease exception | general temporary banner limit days per six month period: 30; nonresidential for lease unoccupied exception years: 1; for lease exception permit required: yes; renewal required yearly: yesregulatory requirements | Thirty-plus code amendments effective March 23, 2024 | Chandler, Arizona | Conditional relationship | [22] [3] |
| Minimum parking ratio codified for flex-industrial development when the user is not identified | 2parking spaces per 1000 sqft | Thirty-plus code amendments effective March 23, 2024 | Flex-industrial development in Chandler where the user is not identified | Context only | [22] |
| Designated historic-structure alteration review and Silk Stocking overlay scope | alteration application reviewed by: Historic Preservation Officer; possible approvals: Certification of No Effect, Certificate of Appropriateness; denial appealable: yes; silk stocking designated properties: 23regulatory requirements | Current historic-preservation program accessed August 2026 | Chandler historic properties; Silk Stocking count is neighborhood-specific | Conditional relationship | [23] [24] [25] [3] |
| Commercial system-development impact fees per building square foot | retail: fire: 0.32, police: 0.078, public buildings: 0.12, arterial streets if applicable: 3.89, total if all apply: 4.41, total without arterial streets: 0.52; office: fire: 0.17, police: 0.04, public buildings: 0.08, arterial streets if applicable: 5.35, total if all apply: 5.64, total without arterial streets: 0.29; industrial: fire: 0.08, police: 0.02, public buildings: 0.02, arterial streets if applicable: 1.05, total if all apply: 1.17, total without arterial streets: 0.12; institutional: fire: 0.16, police: 0.04, public buildings: 0.03, arterial streets if applicable: 1.98, total if all apply: 2.21, total without arterial streets: 0.23; arterial street fee gate: applies only in certain areasusd per building square foot | Schedule labeled 2026; fees effective July 1, 2024 | Commercial development in Chandler; arterial-street component only in mapped applicable areas | Context only | [26] [1] |
| Commercial/industrial system-development charges by meter/service size | 0.75 inch disc total usd: 14,315; 1 inch disc total usd: 23,858; 1.5 inch disc total usd: 47,715; 2 inch disc or turbine total usd: 76,344; 1 inch components usd: water: 6,150, wastewater: 14,973, reclaimed water: 2,735; landscape meter note: Landscape meters are assessed only the water system development fee; water-only landscape connections have no reclaimed-water or wastewater fee.usd | Schedule labeled 2026; fees effective July 1, 2024 | Commercial and landscape water meters in Chandler | Context only | [26] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.78 after target-market demand +1.8 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Constraint and Jurisdictional Risk AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Active Loop 202 Santan Freeway widening affecting Chandler access, Current and scheduled Lindsay Road construction restrictions in southeast Chandler, Alma School Road multi-phase project current restriction status, and Commercial system-development impact fees per building square foot
- 2Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Price Corridor business, employment, employer, and real-estate scale, Chandler drinking-water hardness range and citywide average, and Late-July 2026 Extreme Heat Warning including Chandler
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142(20260817-204636).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Active Loop 202 Santan Freeway widening affecting Chandler access, Current and scheduled Lindsay Road construction restrictions in southeast Chandler, Temporary banner display rule and nonresidential for-lease exception, and Designated historic-structure alteration review and Silk Stocking overlay scope
- 4Community Profile and Demographics
Used for: City population estimate on July 1, 2026 and City housing-unit estimate on July 1, 2026
- 5QuickFacts: Chandler city, Arizona
Used for: Census population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Census population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
- 6Council forms General Plan resident committee, reviews long-range plans
Used for: Share of Chandler reported as built out in February 2025 and Housing units reported built in Chandler since 2016
- 7Employment & Business Districts
Used for: Business and job concentration in Chandler's five designated employment/business districts
- 8Price Corridor Business District
Used for: Price Corridor business, employment, employer, and real-estate scale and Job-density comparison between Price Corridor and Airpark Area
- 9Airpark Area Business District
Used for: Airpark Area business and employment scale and Job-density comparison between Price Corridor and Airpark Area
- 10Advanced Business Services
Used for: Named financial-services employers with substantial Chandler workforces
- 11City of Chandler 2024 Community Needs Assessment
Used for: Residential buildings reported as built before 2000, Median residential building vintage reported for 2021, and Median year of major residential building improvements permitted, reported for 2021
- 12Water Quality FAQs
Used for: Chandler drinking-water hardness range and citywide average
- 13Extreme Heat Warning for the Phoenix metropolitan area including Chandler
Used for: Late-July 2026 Extreme Heat Warning including Chandler
- 14Occupational Employment and Wages in Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler — May 2025
Used for: Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler major occupational mean hourly wages versus U.S. averages
- 15Metropolitan Area Employment and Unemployment — May 2026
Used for: Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler unemployment rate in May 2026
- 16Phoenix Industrial Market Report | Q2 2026
Used for: Kidder Mathews Chandler industrial submarket conditions in Q2 2026
- 17Phoenix Office Market Report | Q2 2026
Used for: Kidder Mathews Chandler office submarket conditions in Q2 2026
- 18Ten56 to deliver 180,000 square feet of Class A Industrial Space
Used for: West Chandler industrial vacancy and announced speculative supply
- 19Loop 202 Santan Freeway Improvements
Used for: Active Loop 202 Santan Freeway widening affecting Chandler access and Maximum planned ramp-closure durations for Loop 202 widening work
- 20Lindsay Road Improvements: Ocotillo Road to Hunt Highway
Used for: Current and scheduled Lindsay Road construction restrictions in southeast Chandler
- 21Road Construction & Traffic Restrictions
Used for: Alma School Road multi-phase project current restriction status
- 22Code Amendments
Used for: Temporary banner display rule and nonresidential for-lease exception and Minimum parking ratio codified for flex-industrial development when the user is not identified
- 23Historic Preservation In Chandler
Used for: Designated historic-structure alteration review and Silk Stocking overlay scope
- 24Historic Preservation In Chandler: How it Works
Used for: Designated historic-structure alteration review and Silk Stocking overlay scope
- 25Chandler establishes historic preservation district zoning overlay within Silk Stocking neighborhood
Used for: Designated historic-structure alteration review and Silk Stocking overlay scope
- 26City of Chandler System Development Fees Schedule 2026
Used for: Commercial system-development impact fees per building square foot and Commercial/industrial system-development charges by meter/service size
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.