69.9 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Davenport, Iowa
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Davenport, Iowa. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Territory and submarket uncertainty 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
27Sources used
15Primary sources
27Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when 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
0.8 points average among 11 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Davenport, Iowa
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Territory and submarket uncertainty was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average. 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 | 72.9Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Davenport, Iowa
Davenport has a documented commercial account base with active downtown and East 53rd Street concentrations
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Selected Davenport retail sales and service receipts in 2022: retail sales usd: 3,676,615,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 1,252,862,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 226,788,000; accommodation and food services sales usd: 493,813,000. [4] [9]
Downtown and East 53rd Street show materially different office, retail, access, and development conditions
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Downtown Davenport business, resident, workforce, and daytime activity base: businesses minimum: 270; residents: 2,700; workforce: 6,500; average annual daytime population approximate: 19,000; taxable value usd minimum: 434,000,000 mixed counts and usd. [9] [10]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was territory quality. [7] [4] [9] [10] [25] [24] [11]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Davenport has a documented commercial account base with active downtown and East 53rd Street concentrations1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
A large Davenport hospital anchor and regional health-sector employment support institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Local historic designation creates an exterior-review gate for affected premises1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Downtown and East 53rd Street show materially different office, retail, access, and development conditions1 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 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.4 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 | +2.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.92 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 | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.9 |
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
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 | +1.9 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.68 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#6
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.44 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 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 | +1.5 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.15 |
| 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 +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.99 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 | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.3 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.09 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
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
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market 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 |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.19 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.35 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.65 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.38 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.62 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.45 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.55 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.56 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.44 |
| 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
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.2 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -1.2 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -1.16 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -1.2 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.84 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#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 | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.9 |
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 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 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Selected Davenport Retail Sales And Service Receipts In 2022retail sales usd: 3,676,615,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 1,252,862,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 226,788,000; accommodation and food services sales usd: 493,813,000
- Education And Health Services Employment In The Metropolitan Areaemployment thousands: 27.7; year over year change percent: 3.7 mixed thousands and percent
- Downtown Davenport Business, Resident, Workforce, And Daytime Activity Basebusinesses minimum: 270; residents: 2,700; workforce: 6,500; average annual daytime population approximate: 19,000; taxable value usd minimum: 434,000,000 mixed counts and usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 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, 7 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #7 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Downtown Davenport Business, Resident, Workforce, And Daytime Activity Basebusinesses minimum: 270; residents: 2,700; workforce: 6,500; average annual daytime population approximate: 19,000; taxable value usd minimum: 434,000,000 mixed counts and usd
- Palmer College Main Campus Enrollment1,057 students
- St. Ambrose University Total Fall Enrollment2,416 students
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
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, 8 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #12 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Downtown Davenport Business, Resident, Workforce, And Daytime Activity Basebusinesses minimum: 270; residents: 2,700; workforce: 6,500; average annual daytime population approximate: 19,000; taxable value usd minimum: 434,000,000 mixed counts and usd
- Downtown Retail And Restaurant Space Inventory And Vacancy In The 2025 Market Studyspaces count: 97; inventory sqft: 312,939; vacant sqft: 30,089; vacancy percent: 9.4 mixed count sqft and percent
- East 53rd Street Corridor Continued To Add Retail And Mixed Office Retail Projectsbirchwood south retail sqft: 10,000; east 52nd office retail building sqft: 30,000; east 52nd retail suite range sqft: 2,800, 4,200 square feet
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.2 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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–#1
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#6 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#7 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#8 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#11 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#12 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #12–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #14–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [7] [9] [10] [11] [25] [24] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [19] [20] [21] [2]Competitive environment: [27] [9] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [8] [1] [24]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [20] [21]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [13] [10] [11] [18]Sales and customer acquisition: [26] [27] [9] [22] [23] [24]Referral ecosystem: [22] [23] [25] [24] [9]Territory quality: [10] [9] [11] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [1] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.4 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.9 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +1.1 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.6 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | +0.1 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.2 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #11 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | +0.2 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -1.2 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to territory quality. 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, FASTSIGNS, Rainbow International Restoration; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Davenport, Iowa
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.9Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Davenport, Iowa
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 70.0. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.0. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Territory quality reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.8–70.0
- Category average
- 69.9
Rainbow International Restoration70.0
PuroClean69.8
Metric registry
The 27 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 100,358people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived QuickFacts; 2022 economic measures | Davenport, Iowa | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived QuickFacts; 2022 economic measures | Davenport, Iowa | Context only | [4] |
| Households in Davenport | 43,237households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived QuickFacts; 2022 economic measures | Davenport, Iowa | Context only | [4] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS city profile | 45,814housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates | Davenport, Iowa | Context only | [5] |
| Selected Davenport retail sales and service receipts in 2022 | retail sales usd: 3,676,615,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 1,252,862,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 226,788,000; accommodation and food services sales usd: 493,813,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived QuickFacts; 2022 economic measures | Davenport, Iowa | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median household income, per-capita income, and poverty rate | median household income usd: 66,200; per capita income usd: 37,521; persons in poverty percent: 15.2mixed usd and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived QuickFacts; 2022 economic measures | Davenport, Iowa | Context only | [4] |
| Selected metropolitan occupational mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages | all occupations local: 29.76; all occupations us: 33.54; food preparation and serving local: 15.63; food preparation and serving us: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning local: 18.51; building and grounds cleaning us: 19.66; office and administrative support local: 22.93; office and administrative support us: 24.79; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2025 | Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL | Context only | [6] |
| Metropolitan and Scott County labor-market conditions in June 2026 | msa unemployment percent: 4.2; scott county unemployment percent: 3.8; msa labor force thousands: 190.7; msa employment thousands: 182.8; msa total nonfarm jobs thousands: 185mixed percent and thousands | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment; page data extracted August 13, 2026 | Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL | Context only | [7] [8] |
| Education and health services employment in the metropolitan area | employment thousands: 27.7; year over year change percent: 3.7mixed thousands and percent | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment; page data extracted August 13, 2026 | Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Downtown Davenport business, resident, workforce, and daytime activity base | businesses minimum: 270; residents: 2,700; workforce: 6,500; average annual daytime population approximate: 19,000; taxable value usd minimum: 434,000,000mixed counts and usd | Downtown conditions and investment pipeline reported June 2026 | Downtown Davenport, Iowa | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Downtown Davenport completed, under-construction, and planned investment reported in June 2026 | completed projects count: 14; completed projects usd: 13,900,000; under construction usd minimum: 35,300,000; planned investment usd minimum: 68,000,000mixed count and usd | Downtown conditions and investment pipeline reported June 2026 | Downtown Davenport, Iowa | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Downtown retail and restaurant space inventory and vacancy in the 2025 market study | spaces count: 97; inventory sqft: 312,939; vacant sqft: 30,089; vacancy percent: 9.4mixed count sqft and percent | April 2025 market analysis | Downtown Davenport, Iowa | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Downtown market study documented office-tenant migration toward newer East 53rd Street product | yesdocumented condition | April 2025 market analysis | Downtown Davenport and East 53rd Street corridor | Used in scoring | [10] |
| East 53rd Street corridor continued to add retail and mixed office-retail projects | birchwood south retail sqft: 10,000; east 52nd office retail building sqft: 30,000; east 52nd retail suite range sqft: 2,800, 4,200square feet | Projects active or reported for 2025-2026 | East 53rd Street and adjacent East 52nd Street commercial corridor, Davenport | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Quad Cities report described demand for functional small- and mid-sized industrial product and limited suitable supply | target size range sqft: 5,000, 50,000; flex lease range usd per sqft: 6.5, 9.5; contractor suite size range sqft: 1,500, 3,000; contractor suite lease range usd per sqft: 8, 10mixed square feet and usd per sqft | 2026 market report using recent Quad Cities transaction and market data | Quad Cities, Iowa-Illinois | Context only | [12] |
| Directional current Davenport flex-space listing inventory | 26featured listings | Current listing inventory accessed August 17, 2026 | Davenport, Iowa | Context only | [13] |
| Transportation-project investment during Davenport's 2026 construction season | 34,800,000usd minimum | 2026 construction season | Davenport 2026 transportation construction corridors | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| City transportation work can create lane closures and detours during the 2026 construction season | yesdocumented condition | 2026 construction season | Active Davenport construction and closure locations | Conditional relationship | [14] [15] |
| Exterior changes to locally designated historic properties are subject to Historic Preservation Commission review | yesregulatory condition | Current preservation-review responsibilities accessed August 2026 | Local Davenport landmarks and historic districts | Conditional relationship | [16] [3] |
| Qualifying land disturbance and development can trigger erosion-control and post-construction stormwater requirements | cosesco land disturbance threshold sqft: 5,000; larger project runoff management threshold acres: 1; post construction plan and maintenance requirements documented: yesmixed sqft acres and condition | Current permit requirements accessed August 2026 | Davenport land-disturbing, development, and redevelopment projects subject to stormwater rules | Context only | [17] [18] |
| New construction, remodeling, and major repairs within the floodplain require floodplain development review | yesregulatory condition | Current permit guidance accessed August 2026 | Davenport properties located in regulated floodplain areas | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| April 2026 Mississippi River crest produced localized low-lying access impacts while recent resilience upgrades reduced impacts at a key intersection | crest feet approximate: 16; response plan activated: yes; localized road trail closures: yes; marquette and river intersection kept dry by recent improvements: yesmixed feet and conditions | April 16 through May 1, 2026 Mississippi River response updates | Davenport Mississippi River frontage and low-lying flood-response areas | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Davenport advanced multiple riverfront and storm-sewer resilience projects | fhwa protect grant usd: 13,100,000; multiple project program usd: 16,400,000; gate valve and storm sewer work planned: yesmixed usd and condition | Flood-resilience implementation status in 2025 and projects planned over the following two years | Davenport flood-resilience implementation areas | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Palmer College main-campus enrollment | 1,057students | Main campus enrollment as of January 5, 2026 | Palmer College of Chiropractic main campus, Davenport | Used in scoring | [22] |
| St. Ambrose University total fall enrollment | 2,416students | Fall 2025 enrollment | St | Used in scoring | [23] |
| MercyOne Genesis Davenport Medical Center and regional system scale | davenport medical center beds: 502; regional system employees minimum: 5,000; regional service counties: 17mixed beds employees and counties | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | MercyOne Genesis Davenport Medical Center and its 17-county bi-state service region | Used in scoring | [25] [24] |
| City procurement uses electronic submissions and vendor registration for bids, RFPs, and quotes | yesdocumented process | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Davenport procurement | Context only | [26] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.92 after target-market demand +2.4 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 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 Constraint and Jurisdictional Risk AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Utility Delta Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in Local U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Exterior changes to locally designated historic properties are subject to Historic Preservation Commission review
- 4QuickFacts: Davenport city, Iowa
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in Davenport, Selected Davenport retail sales and service receipts in 2022, and Median household income, per-capita income, and poverty rate
- 5Davenport city, Iowa - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Total housing units in the 2024 ACS city profile
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Davenport-Moline-Rock Island - May 2025
Used for: Selected metropolitan occupational mean hourly wages compared with U.S. averages
- 7Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IA-IL Economy at a Glance
Used for: Metropolitan and Scott County labor-market conditions in June 2026 and Education and health services employment in the metropolitan area
- 8Davenport Area Economic Summary
Used for: Metropolitan and Scott County labor-market conditions in June 2026
- 9Downtown Davenport Partnership Unveils New Downtown Brand, Highlights Investment Pipeline and Major Gateway Projects at Annual Meeting
Used for: Downtown Davenport business, resident, workforce, and daytime activity base and Downtown Davenport completed, under-construction, and planned investment reported in June 2026
- 10Downtown Davenport Market Analysis
Used for: Downtown retail and restaurant space inventory and vacancy in the 2025 market study and Downtown market study documented office-tenant migration toward newer East 53rd Street product
- 11QCBJ 2025 Newsmakers: Busy 53rd Street corridor continues to get new business projects
Used for: East 53rd Street corridor continued to add retail and mixed office-retail projects
- 122026 Quad Cities Commercial Real Estate Market Report
Used for: Quad Cities report described demand for functional small- and mid-sized industrial product and limited suitable supply
- 13Davenport, IA Flex space for Rent & Lease
Used for: Directional current Davenport flex-space listing inventory
- 142026 Construction Season
Used for: Transportation-project investment during Davenport's 2026 construction season and City transportation work can create lane closures and detours during the 2026 construction season
- 15Street Closures and Lane Reductions
Used for: City transportation work can create lane closures and detours during the 2026 construction season
- 16Historic Preservation Commission
Used for: Exterior changes to locally designated historic properties are subject to Historic Preservation Commission review
- 17Land Disturbing / Construction Site Erosion Control
Used for: Qualifying land disturbance and development can trigger erosion-control and post-construction stormwater requirements
- 18Davenport Stormwater Manual
Used for: Qualifying land disturbance and development can trigger erosion-control and post-construction stormwater requirements
- 19Floodplain Development
Used for: New construction, remodeling, and major repairs within the floodplain require floodplain development review
- 202026 Flood Response
Used for: April 2026 Mississippi River crest produced localized low-lying access impacts while recent resilience upgrades reduced impacts at a key intersection
- 21Davenport Flood Resilience Study Implementation
Used for: Davenport advanced multiple riverfront and storm-sewer resilience projects
- 22Palmer College of Chiropractic College Profile
Used for: Palmer College main-campus enrollment
- 23St. Ambrose University Common Data Set 2025-2026
Used for: St. Ambrose University total fall enrollment
- 24About MercyOne Genesis
Used for: MercyOne Genesis Davenport Medical Center and regional system scale
- 25MercyOne Genesis Davenport Medical Center
Used for: MercyOne Genesis Davenport Medical Center and regional system scale
- 26Bids
Used for: City procurement uses electronic submissions and vendor registration for bids, RFPs, and quotes
- 27
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.