68.4 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Chicago, Illinois
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Chicago, Illinois. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
22Sources used
14Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.3 points average among 10 affected concepts
1.6 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Chicago, Illinois
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.3 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 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 | 73.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.5Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 68.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.8 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 68.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Chicago, Illinois
Large resident, household, employer-firm, and sector base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Employer firms in reference year 2022: 49,426 employer firms. [4]
Mature, multi-unit building stock supports replacement demand and increases service complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5]
Construction and technical-service wages indicate occupationally specific skilled-trade cost pressure
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mean hourly wages for construction and technical service groups: construction and extraction chicago: 40.87; construction and extraction us: 31.42; installation maintenance repair chicago: 31.89; installation maintenance repair us: 30.44 usd per hour mean. [7]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, household, employer-firm, and sector base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Mature, multi-unit building stock supports replacement demand and increases service complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Estimated total housing units: 1,282,248 housing units [5]
- Housing units in multi-unit structures: 71 percent of housing units [5]
- Median year housing structures were built: 1,954 calendar year [6] [1]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Construction and technical-service wages indicate occupationally specific skilled-trade cost pressure1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Congestion and long commute conditions reduce route reliability for high-stop and time-sensitive fleets1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Downtown office weakness and corridor-concentrated industrial activity create large territory-level operating differences1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality
Large covered buildings face recurring energy-use reporting and verification requirements2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Approximate share of buildings and building energy covered by the benchmarking ordinance: share of buildings less than percent: 1; share of total building energy approximately percent: 20 [16]
- Chicago Energy Benchmarking covered-building threshold and reporting rule: minimum gross floor area sqft: 50,000; annual reporting deadline: June 1; verification frequency years: 3; covered sectors: municipal, commercial, institutional, residential regulatory threshold [16]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Sign type and approval pathway depend on zoning district and mapped landmark or historic context1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Large professional, management, property-management, and public-procurement base supports relationship-driven commercial selling3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Employer firms in reference year 2022: 49,426 employer firms [4]
- Selected occupational-group shares of metropolitan employment: office and administrative support: 10.8; transportation and material moving: 10.7; management: 9; business and financial operations: 6.8; legal: 1; educational instruction and library: 6.3; healthcare practitioners and technical: 6.2 percent of msa employment [7]
- Property, real estate, and community association managers: employment: 9,300; location quotient: 1.03; mean hourly wage: 43.52 mixed [7]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.00 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.54 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.62 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
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.62 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.79 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 | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| 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 | -0.2 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +1.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.51 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 | +1.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.52 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| 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 | -0.8 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.48 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.4
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +1.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.65 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 | +1.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.4 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -3.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.1 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.0 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.60 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
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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.9
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.06 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.9 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.55 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.45 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -3.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.1 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.56 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.4 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.0 |
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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+1.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 20252,731,585 people
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Acs Period1,160,205 households
- Employer Firms In Reference Year 202249,426 employer firms
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.3 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #11 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.9 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Annual Snowfall Normal38.4 inches per year
- Annual Heating Degree Days Normal5,974 heating degree days base 65F
- Mean Annual Days With Freezing Conditionsdays with high at or below 32F: 43.4; days with low at or below 32F: 121.3 days per year
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+1.2 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+1.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.8 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.7 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #11 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.6 pts
Average across all concepts-1.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Mean Hourly Wages For Selected Frontline Occupational Groupsfood preparation and serving chicago: 18.14; food preparation and serving us: 17.86; healthcare support chicago: 20.79; healthcare support us: 19.62; building and grounds chicago: 20.87; building and grounds us: 19.66; office and administrative chicago: 25.82; office and administrative us: 24.79; additional values omitted usd per hour mean
- Mean Hourly Wages For Construction And Technical Service Groupsconstruction and extraction chicago: 40.87; construction and extraction us: 31.42; installation maintenance repair chicago: 31.89; installation maintenance repair us: 30.44 usd per hour mean
- Chicago Minimum Hourly Wage Effective July 1, 2026non tipped: 17.05; tipped: 12.96; covered employer minimum employee count: 4 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-3.1 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-3.1 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.9 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 3 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #10 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank3
What we observed
- Mean Travel Time To Work For Workers Age 16 And Over33.1 minutes
- Annual Snowfall Normal38.4 inches per year
- Chicago City Traffic Indicators In 2025average congestion level: 46.1; rush hour time lost hours: 79; evening rush 10km time minutes: 26.9; evening rush average speed kmh: 22.3 mixed
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.1 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #8 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #9 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank2
What we observed
- Industrial Leasing Concentration In Leading Corridorsi80 corridor leasing ytd million sqft: 5.1; i55 corridor leasing ytd million sqft: 3.7; sublease vacancy concentrated in three submarkets percent: 40.7 mixed
- Chicago Downtown Office Market Conditions In Q2 2026direct vacancy rate: 26.8; q2 net absorption sqft: -97,904; ytd net absorption sqft: -500,470; cumulative net absorption since 2023 million sqft: -2.2; buildings under construction: 0 mixed
- Chicago Metropolitan Industrial Market Conditions In Q2 2026vacancy rate: 4.8; new leasing ytd million sqft: 21.8; new leasing yoy change: 11.1; under construction million sqft: 13.5; delivered ytd million sqft: 5.9; average asking net rent usd per sqft: 7.55 mixed
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo 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 WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#5 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#6
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#7 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#8 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#9 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#10 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#11 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#12 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#13 Mr. RooterStable · tested #13–#14
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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: [3] [4] [5] [15] [14] [22] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [11] [16] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [14] [15] [1]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [9] [10] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [13] [12] [11] [19] [20] [2] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [14] [15] [5] [16] [17] [18] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [21] [22] [7] [1]Referral ecosystem: [4] [7] [21] [22]Territory quality: [3] [4] [5] [14] [15] [13] [12] [18]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [8] [10] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.6 pts | — | -0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.4 pts | — | -0.8 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +2.3 pts | — | -1.2 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | — | -1.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.5 pts | -0.6 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.3 pts | — | -0.2 pts |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +1.2 pts | -1.9 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #9 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.6 pts | -0.1 pts | — | -0.8 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +1.2 pts | -1.9 pts | -1.1 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #11 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +1.5 pts | -3.1 pts | -1.0 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #12 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -2.7 pts | -1.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | +0.5 pts | -2.8 pts | -1.2 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.8 pts | -3.1 pts | -0.9 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Chicago, Illinois
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.4Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Chicago, Illinois
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.4 to 68.5. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.5. Property replacement-cycle demand added 1.2 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.9 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.4–68.5
- Category average
- 68.4
Rainbow International Restoration68.5
PuroClean68.4
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 2,731,585people | July 1, 2025 population estimates and April 1, 2020 estimate base | Chicago, Illinois | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -0.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimates and April 1, 2020 estimate base | Chicago, Illinois | Context only | [3] |
| Population density in 2020 | 12,059.8people per square mile | 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census and Annual Business Survey; 2020 Census geography | Chicago, Illinois | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 1,160,205households | 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census and Annual Business Survey; 2020 Census geography | Chicago, Illinois | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Employer firms in reference year 2022 | 49,426employer firms | 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census and Annual Business Survey; 2020 Census geography | Chicago, Illinois | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Selected sector sales and receipts in 2022 | accommodation and food services sales thousand usd: 13,762,862; health care and social assistance receipts thousand usd: 31,969,605; transportation and warehousing receipts thousand usd: 24,051,104; retail sales thousand usd: 39,446,662thousand usd | 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census and Annual Business Survey; 2020 Census geography | Chicago, Illinois | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over | 33.1minutes | 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 Economic Census and Annual Business Survey; 2020 Census geography | Chicago, Illinois | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Estimated total housing units | 1,282,248housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Chicago, Illinois | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Occupied share of housing units | 91percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Chicago, Illinois | Context only | [5] |
| Renter-occupied share of occupied housing units | 53percent of occupied housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Chicago, Illinois | Context only | [5] |
| Housing units in multi-unit structures | 71percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Chicago, Illinois | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Median year housing structures were built | 1,954calendar year | 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Chicago, Illinois | Supports modeled relationship | [6] [1] |
| Mean hourly wages for selected frontline occupational groups | food preparation and serving chicago: 18.14; food preparation and serving us: 17.86; healthcare support chicago: 20.79; healthcare support us: 19.62; building and grounds chicago: 20.87; building and grounds us: 19.66; office and administrative chicago: 25.82; office and administrative us: 24.79; additional values omittedusd per hour mean | May 2025 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Mean hourly wages for construction and technical service groups | construction and extraction chicago: 40.87; construction and extraction us: 31.42; installation maintenance repair chicago: 31.89; installation maintenance repair us: 30.44usd per hour mean | May 2025 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Selected occupational-group shares of metropolitan employment | office and administrative support: 10.8; transportation and material moving: 10.7; management: 9; business and financial operations: 6.8; legal: 1; educational instruction and library: 6.3; healthcare practitioners and technical: 6.2percent of msa employment | May 2025 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| Property, real estate, and community association managers | employment: 9,300; location quotient: 1.03; mean hourly wage: 43.52mixed | May 2025 | Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN | Supports modeled relationship | [7] |
| Chicago minimum hourly wage effective July 1, 2026 | non tipped: 17.05; tipped: 12.96; covered employer minimum employee count: 4usd per hour | 2026 code supplement accessed July 2026 | City of Chicago covered work | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave minimum accrual | paid leave hours per hours worked: 1 per 35; paid sick leave hours per hours worked: 1 per 35accrual rule | Accrual requirements effective from July 1, 2024; current code accessed July 2026 | Covered Chicago employees and employers | Context only | [10] |
| Annual snowfall normal | 38.4inches per year | 1991-2020 climate normals at Chicago O’Hare | Chicago O’Hare | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Annual heating degree days normal | 5,974heating degree days base 65F | 1991-2020 climate normals at Chicago O’Hare | Chicago O’Hare | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Mean annual days with freezing conditions | days with high at or below 32F: 43.4; days with low at or below 32F: 121.3days per year | 1991-2020 climate normals at Chicago O’Hare | Chicago O’Hare | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Recurring winter overnight parking restriction on mapped major streets | start date: December 1; end date: April 1; restricted hours: 03:00-07:00recurring rule | Recurring December 1-April 1 restriction; current dataset accessed July 2026 | Major Chicago streets identified in the City dataset | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Chicago city traffic indicators in 2025 | average congestion level: 46.1; rush hour time lost hours: 79; evening rush 10km time minutes: 26.9; evening rush average speed kmh: 22.3mixed | Calendar year 2025 | Chicago, Illinois | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Chicago metropolitan industrial market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate: 4.8; new leasing ytd million sqft: 21.8; new leasing yoy change: 11.1; under construction million sqft: 13.5; delivered ytd million sqft: 5.9; average asking net rent usd per sqft: 7.55mixed | Q2 2026 and first half 2026 | Chicago industrial market | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Industrial leasing concentration in leading corridors | i80 corridor leasing ytd million sqft: 5.1; i55 corridor leasing ytd million sqft: 3.7; sublease vacancy concentrated in three submarkets percent: 40.7mixed | Q2 2026 and first half 2026 | I-80 Corridor, I-55 Corridor, Western Cook County, and Southern Fox Valley | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Chicago downtown office market conditions in Q2 2026 | direct vacancy rate: 26.8; q2 net absorption sqft: -97,904; ytd net absorption sqft: -500,470; cumulative net absorption since 2023 million sqft: -2.2; buildings under construction: 0mixed | Q2 2026 and year-to-date 2026 | Chicago downtown office market | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Chicago Energy Benchmarking covered-building threshold and reporting rule | minimum gross floor area sqft: 50,000; annual reporting deadline: June 1; verification frequency years: 3; covered sectors: municipal, commercial, institutional, residentialregulatory threshold | Current covered-building list last updated March 14, 2025 | Existing Chicago buildings meeting ordinance criteria | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Approximate share of buildings and building energy covered by the benchmarking ordinance | share of buildings less than percent: 1; share of total building energy approximately percent: 20percent | Current covered-building list last updated March 14, 2025 | Chicago Energy Benchmarking Ordinance | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Permanent sign types vary by zoning district and approval pathway | district groups: B, C, M, DC, DX, DS; approval categories: permitted by right, special use, prohibitedcategorical rule | Current zoning ordinance accessed July 2026 | Chicago business, commercial, manufacturing, and downtown districts | Conditional relationship | [17] [18] |
| Red Line Extension expected construction impacts and horizon | expected impacts: street closures, alley closures, traffic lane closures, sidewalk closures, dust and truck traffic, noise and vibration; scheduled completion year: 2,030project schedule and impact list | Active and scheduled construction through 2030 | CTA Red Line Extension zones on Chicago’s Far South Side | Context only | [19] |
| Active O’Hare 21 capital program components | Terminal Area Plan, O’Hare Global Terminal, two Satellite Concourses, airfield projects, Terminal 5 and Terminal 3 expansions, cargo development, Airport Transit System and Multi-Modal Facility projectsproject components | Current capital program components accessed July 2026 | Chicago O’Hare International Airport | Context only | [20] |
| Public vendor portal exposes contracts, payments, opportunity lists, bid tabulations, and current solicitations | records available: vendor information, contracts and modifications, disclosures, payments, opportunity lists, bid tabulations; active categories observed: construction, work services, professional services, commodities, small orders, CTA rolling stock and constructionprocurement channel features | Current awards and vendor records accessed July 2026 | City of Chicago, CTA, and participating agencies | Supports modeled relationship | [21] [22] |
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 73.00 after target-market demand +2.6 pts, referral ecosystem +0.7 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts, transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts, and territory quality -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median year housing structures were built
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Population Growth Holds Steady in Midsized Cities Amid Widespread Slowdown
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
- 4QuickFacts: Chicago city, Illinois
Used for: Population density in 2020, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 ACS period, Employer firms in reference year 2022, Selected sector sales and receipts in 2022, and Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over
- 5Chicago, IL — Profile data
Used for: Estimated total housing units, Occupied share of housing units, Renter-occupied share of occupied housing units, and Housing units in multi-unit structures
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Chicago-Naperville-Elgin — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for selected frontline occupational groups, Mean hourly wages for construction and technical service groups, Selected occupational-group shares of metropolitan employment, and Property, real estate, and community association managers
- 8Chicago Municipal Code 6-105-020: Minimum hourly wage
Used for: Chicago minimum hourly wage effective July 1, 2026
- 9Minimum Wage to Increase in Chicago, Suburban Cook County Starting July 1
Used for: Chicago minimum hourly wage effective July 1, 2026
- 10Chicago Municipal Code 6-130-030: Paid sick leave and paid leave
Used for: Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave minimum accrual
- 111991-2020 Monthly and Yearly Normals for Chicago and Rockford
Used for: Annual snowfall normal, Annual heating degree days normal, and Mean annual days with freezing conditions
- 12Winter Overnight Parking Restrictions
Used for: Recurring winter overnight parking restriction on mapped major streets
- 13Chicago, IL traffic report
Used for: Chicago city traffic indicators in 2025
- 14Chicago Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Chicago metropolitan industrial market conditions in Q2 2026 and Industrial leasing concentration in leading corridors
- 15Chicago Downtown Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Chicago downtown office market conditions in Q2 2026
- 16Chicago Energy Benchmarking — Covered Buildings
Used for: Chicago Energy Benchmarking covered-building threshold and reporting rule and Approximate share of buildings and building energy covered by the benchmarking ordinance
- 17Chicago Zoning Ordinance 17-12-1000: Signs in business, commercial, downtown and manufacturing districts
Used for: Permanent sign types vary by zoning district and approval pathway
- 18Chicago Zoning MapServer
Used for: Permanent sign types vary by zoning district and approval pathway
- 19Red Line Extension — Construction
Used for: Red Line Extension expected construction impacts and horizon
- 20O’Hare 21 — Happening Now
Used for: Active O’Hare 21 capital program components
- 21City of Chicago Vendor, Contract, and Payment Search
Used for: Public vendor portal exposes contracts, payments, opportunity lists, bid tabulations, and current solicitations
- 22City of Chicago Vendor, Contract, and Payment Search — Active Solicitations
Used for: Public vendor portal exposes contracts, payments, opportunity lists, bid tabulations, and current solicitations
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.