68.8 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Concord, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Concord, California. Healthcare institutional service 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
20Sources used
12Primary sources
26Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.4 points average among 7 affected concepts
1 point average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Concord, California
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Healthcare institutional service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.5 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.9 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #12 to #4 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 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 68.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 68.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 68.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Concord, California
A large local health-care cluster supports institution-oriented service demand
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022: 1,820,639,000 usd. [6] [9]
Regional skilled-trade wages raise the hiring cost for technical service models
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care is a major and growing Concord industry cluster: sector rank characterization: second-largest local sector; job growth 2015 2025 percent: 46 text and percent. [9] [10]
old_building_demand_and_complexity
The age distribution supports a broad repair and replacement opportunity for plumbing, HVAC, electrical, restoration, and inspection services, but the City explicitly warns that age alone is a high estimate of substantial rehabilitation need. The modifier therefore captures recurring service demand without assuming that all older properties retain original systems or need immediate major work. [8] [3]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Bay Area frontline and support wages create an elevated labor-cost baseline for Concord employers1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Regional skilled-trade wages raise the hiring cost for technical service models1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
A large local health-care cluster supports institution-oriented service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Downtown, office, industrial, and neighborhood conditions vary enough to make exact Concord territory and site selection material1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality
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 alignment70.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.2 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 |
| +1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.90 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 | -0.2 |
| 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 | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.90 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | 0.00 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | 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 | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#10
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 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 |
| -0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.56 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.58 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 | +0.9 |
| 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 | 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 | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.42 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 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 | -0.4 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -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
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| 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 | -0.2 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 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 | -0.9 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.87 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.25 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.75 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.30 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.6
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.45 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.6 |
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
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 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 | -1.6 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.47 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.53 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.7 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.04 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| 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 | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.96 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#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 | +1.2 |
| 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 | 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 | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.90 |
| 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.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #5 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Reduced Office Attendance And Downtown Visitor Activity Relative To Pre Pandemic Patternsinterview estimated average weekday office occupancy percent range: 50, 60; interview estimated monday friday office occupancy percent approximate: 20; downtown visitor activity characterization: visitor traffic had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels, with downtown particularly affected by lower office occupancy percent and text
- Housing Tenure, Housing Costs, Household Income, And Household Countowner occupied rate percent: 61.6; median owner occupied value usd: 797,600; median gross rent usd monthly: 2,274; median household income usd 2024 dollars: 108,709; households: 46,236 percent usd and households
- Health Care Is A Major And Growing Concord Industry Clustersector rank characterization: second-largest local sector; job growth 2015 2025 percent: 46 text and percent
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.2 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.2 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.6 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, 6 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #3 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- City Caution That Age Alone Overstates Substantial Rehabilitation Needage based high estimate units: 36,725; city substantial rehabilitation or replacement estimate units approximate: 150; interpretive note: The City states that normal maintenance means an age-only estimate is high and that substantial rehabilitation or replacement needs are much lower. housing units and text
- Share Of Housing Stock Built In 1979 Or Earlierbuilt 1979 or earlier percent: 76.4; built 1960 1979 units: 24,138; built 1960 1979 percent: 50.2; built 1940 1959 units: 11,699; built 1940 1959 percent: 24.3; built 1939 or earlier units: 888; built 1939 or earlier percent: 1.8; housing units in age table: 48,096 percent and housing units
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 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, 10 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #3 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.0 pts
Average across all concepts-0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Health Care Is A Major And Growing Concord Industry Clustersector rank characterization: second-largest local sector; job growth 2015 2025 percent: 46 text and percent
- California Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202616.9 usd per hour
- Regional Mean Hourly Wages For Frontline And Support Occupational Groupsfood preparation and serving usd per hour: 22.91; building and grounds cleaning maintenance usd per hour: 25.46; sales related usd per hour: 36.06; office administrative support usd per hour: 32.96; transportation material moving usd per hour: 30.45; all occupations usd per hour: 48.19
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.3 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. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #3, 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
- Reduced Office Attendance And Downtown Visitor Activity Relative To Pre Pandemic Patternsinterview estimated average weekday office occupancy percent range: 50, 60; interview estimated monday friday office occupancy percent approximate: 20; downtown visitor activity characterization: visitor traffic had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels, with downtown particularly affected by lower office occupancy percent and text
- Active Business License Counts By Home Based Statustotal active business licenses approximate: 5,868; home based: 2,055; non home based: 3,813
- Concord Industrial Vacancy And Expansion Space Constraint Reported In The Adopted Economic Strategyvacancy characterization 2015 2025: below 4 percent; broker interview condition: limited available industrial space and buildings for local business expansion; new recent north concord industrial space sqft minimum: 100,000 percent text and square feet
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.7 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
- 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
- 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 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#10
#3 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#5 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#7 HomeSmilesStable · tested #7–#8
#8 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#9 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#12 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#13 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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: [6] [7] [8] [9] [16] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [8] [7] [15] [3]Competitive environment: [9] [6] [5]Labor and staffing friction: [10] [11] [9] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [6] [9] [18] [5] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [19] [20] [14] [13] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [9] [6] [17] [16] [5]Referral ecosystem: [9] [16] [6] [17]Territory quality: [9] [18] [15] [5] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [15] [12] [11] [4] [5]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.2 pts | — | -0.2 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #3 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.2 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +0.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #5 Jan-Pro International | +0.9 pts | — | -1.2 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.4 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #7 HomeSmiles | +0.5 pts | — | -0.9 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -1.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #9 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -1.3 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.5 pts | -1.4 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.5 pts | -1.4 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #12 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.5 pts | -1.5 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #13 Aire Serv | — | +0.5 pts | -1.6 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.6 pts | — | -0.7 pts | -0.7 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle 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 ActionCOACH, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, FASTSIGNS; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Concord, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.8Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Concord, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.8 to 68.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 68.9. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.3 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
- 68.8–68.9
- Category average
- 68.8
Rainbow International Restoration68.9
PuroClean68.8
Metric registry
The 26 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 123,261people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic receipts; 2023 business reference data | Concord, California | Context only | [6] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic receipts; 2023 business reference data | Concord, California | Context only | [6] |
| Housing tenure, housing costs, household income, and household count | owner occupied rate percent: 61.6; median owner occupied value usd: 797,600; median gross rent usd monthly: 2,274; median household income usd 2024 dollars: 108,709; households: 46,236percent usd and households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic receipts; 2023 business reference data | Concord, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Total and occupied housing units in April 2020 and January 2026 | housing units 2020 04 01: 47,597; housing units 2026 01 01: 48,246; occupied units 2020 04 01: 45,800; occupied units 2026 01 01: 46,422housing units | April 1, 2020 benchmark and January 1, 2026 estimate | Concord, California | Context only | [7] |
| Growth in total and occupied housing units from April 2020 to January 2026 | total units absolute change: 649; total units percent change: 1.364; occupied units absolute change: 622; occupied units percent change: 1.358housing units and percent | April 1, 2020 benchmark and January 1, 2026 estimate | Concord, California | Context only | [7] |
| Share of housing stock built in 1979 or earlier | built 1979 or earlier percent: 76.4; built 1960 1979 units: 24,138; built 1960 1979 percent: 50.2; built 1940 1959 units: 11,699; built 1940 1959 percent: 24.3; built 1939 or earlier units: 888; built 1939 or earlier percent: 1.8; housing units in age table: 48,096percent and housing units | Housing-age and condition analysis based principally on 2019 data; cost-burden discussion for the Housing Element update | Concord, California | Used in scoring | [8] [3] |
| City caution that age alone overstates substantial rehabilitation need | age based high estimate units: 36,725; city substantial rehabilitation or replacement estimate units approximate: 150; interpretive note: The City states that normal maintenance means an age-only estimate is high and that substantial rehabilitation or replacement needs are much lower.housing units and text | Housing-age and condition analysis based principally on 2019 data; cost-burden discussion for the Housing Element update | Concord, California | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Household housing-cost burden and earlier renter-owner burden split | households spending at least 30 percent income 2023 percent approximate: 40; renter households cost burdened 2019 percent: 54; owner households cost burdened 2019 percent: 29percent of households | Adopted 2025; incorporates 2022 commute data, 2023 household metrics, 2025 business-license, sector, office, retail, and industrial evidence | Concord, California households | Used in scoring | [9] [8] |
| Mean travel time to work | 32.6minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic receipts; 2023 business reference data | Concord, California workers age 16 and older | Context only | [6] |
| Concord was a net importer of workers in 2022 | net inbound workers more than outbound approximate: 3,500; direction: net inflowworkers and direction | Adopted 2025; incorporates 2022 commute data, 2023 household metrics, 2025 business-license, sector, office, retail, and industrial evidence | Concord, California | Conditional relationship | [9] [3] |
| Reduced office attendance and downtown visitor activity relative to pre-pandemic patterns | interview estimated average weekday office occupancy percent range: 50, 60; interview estimated monday friday office occupancy percent approximate: 20; downtown visitor activity characterization: visitor traffic had not recovered to pre-pandemic levels, with downtown particularly affected by lower office occupancypercent and text | Adopted 2025; incorporates 2022 commute data, 2023 household metrics, 2025 business-license, sector, office, retail, and industrial evidence | Concord office market and Downtown Concord | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Active business-license counts by home-based status | total active business licenses approximate: 5,868; home based: 2,055; non home based: 3,813business licenses | Adopted 2025; incorporates 2022 commute data, 2023 household metrics, 2025 business-license, sector, office, retail, and industrial evidence | Concord, California | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Health care is a major and growing Concord industry cluster | sector rank characterization: second-largest local sector; job growth 2015 2025 percent: 46text and percent | Adopted 2025; incorporates 2022 commute data, 2023 household metrics, 2025 business-license, sector, office, retail, and industrial evidence | Concord, California | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 1,820,639,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS measures; 2022 economic receipts; 2023 business reference data | Concord, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Licensed beds at John Muir Health Concord Medical Center | 244licensed beds | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | John Muir Health Concord Medical Center | Used in scoring | [16] [9] [5] |
| Regional mean hourly wages for frontline and support occupational groups | food preparation and serving usd per hour: 22.91; building and grounds cleaning maintenance usd per hour: 25.46; sales related usd per hour: 36.06; office administrative support usd per hour: 32.96; transportation material moving usd per hour: 30.45; all occupations usd per hour: 48.19usd per hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Regional mean hourly wages for construction, installation, maintenance, and repair occupations | construction and extraction usd per hour: 43.66; installation maintenance repair usd per hour: 38.95; us construction and extraction usd per hour: 31.42; us installation maintenance repair usd per hour: 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [10] |
| California minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 16.9usd per hour | Effective January 1, 2026 | California, including Concord | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Concord industrial vacancy and expansion-space constraint reported in the adopted economic strategy | vacancy characterization 2015 2025: below 4 percent; broker interview condition: limited available industrial space and buildings for local business expansion; new recent north concord industrial space sqft minimum: 100,000percent text and square feet | Adopted 2025; incorporates 2022 commute data, 2023 household metrics, 2025 business-license, sector, office, retail, and industrial evidence | Concord, California industrial market | Used in scoring | [9] [3] |
| Current East Bay industrial vacancy, flex vacancy, and smaller-building availability | east bay direct vacancy percent: 8.7; east bay total vacancy percent: 10.2; east bay availability percent: 11.6; east bay average asking rent usd per sqft per month nnn: 1.59; flex total vacancy percent: 14.9; flex availability percent: 16.4; flex direct rent usd per sqft per month nnn: 2.25; building 5000 24999 total vacancy percent: 6; additional values omittedpercent usd per sqft per month and text | Second quarter 2026 | East Bay industrial market | Context only | [19] [20] |
| Commercial vehicle street-parking restrictions for vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or more | gvwr threshold pounds: 10,000; overnight window start: 02:00; overnight window end: 06:00; maximum street parking minutes during window: 30; residential district rule: parking or standing on streets is prohibited except for specified pickup, delivery, or permitted construction activitiespounds minutes time and text | Current codified rules accessed August 2026 | City of Concord public streets and residential districts | Conditional relationship | [12] [5] |
| Sign plan and master sign program thresholds | sign plan required sign count minimum: 2; sign plan required sign count maximum: 5; master sign program sign count minimum: 6; master sign program multi tenant space minimum: 6; major rehabilitation square feet threshold: 25,000; major rehabilitation exterior share threshold percent: 50; existing sign share threshold percent: 25; freeway oriented signs master program required: yes; additional values omittedcounts square feet percent and boolean | Current sign review and approval process accessed August 2026 | City of Concord signs subject to listed site and project conditions | Conditional relationship | [13] [5] |
| Selected current traffic-mitigation and sign-program fees | traffic mitigation commercial usd per gross sqft: 8.81; traffic mitigation office usd per gross sqft: 7.04; traffic mitigation industrial usd per gross sqft: 2.98; traffic mitigation mini storage usd per gross sqft: 1.51; master sign program fixed fee usd: 6,500; master sign program staff review fee usd: 1,500; sign plan fee usd: 660; effective date: 2026-07-01usd per gross sqft and usd | Fee schedule effective July 1, 2026 | City of Concord, project- and application-specific | Conditional relationship | [14] [4] |
| Updated local fire-hazard severity zones and related building-code purpose | map release date: 2025-02-24; zone classes: moderate, high, very high; high zone building code extension required by state law: yes; purpose: support defensible-space programs and new building-code standards to reduce wildfire lossdate categories boolean and text | 2025 Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zone map update | Mapped Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Concord | Context only | [15] [3] |
| Formal municipal procurement can take up to eight weeks or longer | formal bid duration weeks up to: 8; duration qualifier: or longer depending on circumstances; formal bid requirements: competitive bid, published noticeweeks and text | Current procurement guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Concord procurement | Context only | [17] |
| Former Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project remains in planning and entitlement process | term sheet acres approximate: 2,422; term sheet city council approval date: 2026-05-27; next phase: Specific Plan preparation and additional entitlement documents; current status: future redevelopment; not a completed operating conditionacres date and text | Project status as of May 27, 2026 | Former Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse area | Context only | [18] [4] |
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 70.90 after target-market demand +1.2 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.2 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. Sub-Markets: A Utility Delta AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Share of housing stock built in 1979 or earlier, Concord was a net importer of workers in 2022, Concord industrial vacancy and expansion-space constraint reported in the adopted economic strategy, and Updated local fire-hazard severity zones and related building-code purpose
- 4Forensic Municipal Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Capital FrictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Selected current traffic-mitigation and sign-program fees and Former Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project remains in planning and entitlement process
- 5Franchise data - remake - des.csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Licensed beds at John Muir Health Concord Medical Center, Commercial vehicle street-parking restrictions for vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or more, and Sign plan and master sign program thresholds
- 6QuickFacts: Concord city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Housing tenure, housing costs, household income, and household count, Mean travel time to work, and Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022
- 7E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020-2026
Used for: Total and occupied housing units in April 2020 and January 2026 and Growth in total and occupied housing units from April 2020 to January 2026
- 8Housing Needs Assessment
Used for: Share of housing stock built in 1979 or earlier, City caution that age alone overstates substantial rehabilitation need, and Household housing-cost burden and earlier renter-owner burden split
- 9Concord Economic Development Strategic Plan - Final Adopted with Appendices
Used for: Household housing-cost burden and earlier renter-owner burden split, Concord was a net importer of workers in 2022, Reduced office attendance and downtown visitor activity relative to pre-pandemic patterns, Active business-license counts by home-based status, and Health care is a major and growing Concord industry cluster
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont - May 2025
Used for: Regional mean hourly wages for frontline and support occupational groups and Regional mean hourly wages for construction, installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
- 11Minimum Wage
Used for: California minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 12Concord Municipal Code Chapter 10.30 - Stopping, Standing, and Parking
Used for: Commercial vehicle street-parking restrictions for vehicles rated at 10,000 pounds or more
- 13Sign Approvals and Processes for Businesses and Properties
Used for: Sign plan and master sign program thresholds
- 14Fees and Charges Schedule - July 1, 2026
Used for: Selected current traffic-mitigation and sign-program fees
- 15Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Used for: Updated local fire-hazard severity zones and related building-code purpose
- 16Concord Medical Center
Used for: Licensed beds at John Muir Health Concord Medical Center
- 17Policies and Procedures - Procurement Process
Used for: Formal municipal procurement can take up to eight weeks or longer
- 18City Council Approves Financial Agreement with the U.S. Navy for the Reuse Project
Used for: Former Concord Naval Weapons Station reuse project remains in planning and entitlement process
- 19Oakland/East Bay Industrial Market Report - Q2 2026
Used for: Current East Bay industrial vacancy, flex vacancy, and smaller-building availability
- 20Q2 2026 East Bay Market Report
Used for: Current East Bay industrial vacancy, flex vacancy, and smaller-building availability
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.