70.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Detroit, Michigan
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Detroit, Michigan. Replacement and repair 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
23Sources used
19Primary sources
35Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.1 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.4 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Detroit, Michigan
City Wide, Rainbow International Restoration, and Jan-Pro International produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. 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 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.3 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Detroit, Michigan
Predominantly pre-1960 housing and a large lead-service-line inventory support replacement demand and technical complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [2]
Downtown visitor concentrations, neighborhood household conditions, and property-type market divergence create territory sensitivity
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Population density in the 2020 Census: 4,606.8 people per square mile. [1]
property-restoration
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was transportation, routing, and parking. [18] [19] [2] [1] [20] [3] [16] [17]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large healthcare sector and New Center institutional expansion support institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Downtown sports and destination events create material but geographically concentrated demand spikes2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Downtown Detroit visits and unique visitors in 2025: visits approximate: 31,000,000; unique visitors: 8,700,000; year over year visit change percent: 3.5 visits and people [20]
- Downtown visitation during Detroit Tigers Opening Day on April 3, 2026: visitors 10am to 6pm minimum: 200,000; year over year change percent: 24; comerica park attendance: 45,008; michigan origin share percent: 94 people and percent [21]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Predominantly pre-1960 housing and a large lead-service-line inventory support replacement demand and technical complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Total housing units: 343,649 housing units [2]
- Housing units constructed before 1960: count: 269,143; share: 78.32 housing units and percent [2]
- Housing units in one-unit detached structures: count: 219,621; share: 63.9 housing units and percent [2]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Recurring freezing temperatures and snowfall support weatherization demand and seasonal route friction3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Annual normal snowfall: 45 inches per year [16]
- Normal monthly minimum temperatures in core winter months: january f: 19.2; february f: 20.8; december f: 25.3 degrees Fahrenheit [16]
- Detroit snow-removal levels, road responsibilities, parking restrictions, and sidewalk duties: city maintained major road miles: 673; residential street miles: 1,884; snow event levels: 3; level 3 threshold inches: 6; snow emergency parking restrictions possible: yes; business sidewalk clearing required: yes operational policy [17]
Freeze-thaw repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Winter route frictionTransportation, routing, and parking
Downtown visitor concentrations, neighborhood household conditions, and property-type market divergence create territory sensitivity1 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 alignment70.7
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.9 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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.75 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 70.75 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +1.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.14 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 | +1.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| 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 | 70.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 70.02 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#4Tier 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.04 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 69.96 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +1.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.88 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 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
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 | +1.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.22 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 | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| 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 | 69.78 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 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 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 69.66 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.3 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.37 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.63 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -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 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.49 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.99 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 | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.01 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.24 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 | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| 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 | 68.76 |
| 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
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 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 | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| 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 | 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.0 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 |
| -1.0 pts |
| Target-market demand | -0.8 pts | |
| Net local movement | -1.77 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 | -0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | -1.0 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | 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 | 70.75 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
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, 12 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #3 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Median Household Income39,938 USD 2024 dollars
- Persons In Poverty32.7 percent of people
- Median Gross Rent1,074 USD per month
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.9 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.3 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.1 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.8 pts
Observed model effectPositive local support
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, 12 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #2 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+1.1 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+1.3 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+1.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.9 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #6 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank10
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #5 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected-0.4 pts
Average across all concepts-0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.6 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, 5 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #4 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.4 pts
Average across all concepts-0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Population Density In The 2020 Census4,606.8 people per square mile
- Persons In Poverty32.7 percent of people
- Downtown Detroit Visits And Unique Visitors In 2025visits approximate: 31,000,000; unique visitors: 8,700,000; year over year visit change percent: 3.5 visits and people
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#5 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsStable · tested #6–#7
#8 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#9 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#10 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#12 Mr. RooterStable · tested #12–#13
#13 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #10–#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: [1] [2] [10] [11] [12] [20] [21] [15] [23]Property replacement-cycle demand: [2] [3] [16] [17] [4] [5]Competitive environment: [1] [20] [18] [19]Labor and staffing friction: [13] [15] [14] [2] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [1] [16] [17] [22] [23] [11]Real estate and site feasibility: [18] [19] [6] [7] [20]Sales and customer acquisition: [8] [9] [20] [1]Referral ecosystem: [10] [11] [12] [8] [1]Territory quality: [1] [2] [20] [21] [18] [19] [22]Regulatory and operating friction: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [14] [17]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +0.9 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +1.3 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +0.6 pts | — | — | -0.3 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #5 PuroClean | — | +1.3 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Aire Serv | — | +1.6 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.7 pts | -0.1 pts | -0.4 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #9 HomeSmiles | +0.3 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #10 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — | -0.2 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.9 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #12 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.8 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.8 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.8 pts | — | — | — | -1.0 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Rainbow International Restoration, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle 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 Rainbow International Restoration, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Detroit, Michigan
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Detroit, Michigan
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.9 to 70.1. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 1.3 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.9–70.1
- Category average
- 70.0
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
PuroClean69.9
Metric registry
The 35 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 | 649,095people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period | 257,998households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Population density in the 2020 Census | 4,606.8people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Median household income | 39,938USD 2024 dollars | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Persons in poverty | 32.7percent of people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Median gross rent | 1,074USD per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 50.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 years and over | 24.8minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts or revenue in 2022 | 8,275,507,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Accommodation and food services sales in 2022 | 2,651,860,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Retail sales in 2022 | 5,452,505,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, commute, and poverty characteristics; 2022 sector sales and receipts | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [1] |
| Total housing units | 343,649housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Detroit, Michigan | Supports modeled relationship | [2] |
| Vacant housing units | count: 75,601; share: 22housing units and percent | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Detroit, Michigan | Context only | [2] |
| Housing units constructed before 1960 | count: 269,143; share: 78.32housing units and percent | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Detroit, Michigan | Supports modeled relationship | [2] |
| Housing units in one-unit detached structures | count: 219,621; share: 63.9housing units and percent | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Detroit, Michigan | Supports modeled relationship | [2] |
| Estimated lead service lines in Detroit | minimum estimate: 80,000; most likely property cohort: single-family homes built before 1945service lines and property cohort | Current program description displayed July 2026 | Detroit, Michigan | Supports modeled relationship | [3] |
| Annual energy and water reporting requirement for covered buildings | minimum building size sqft: 25,000; covered uses: commercial, industrial, multifamily; reporting frequency: annual; reporting platform: ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager; data due: 2026-06-01; data year due: 2,025regulatory threshold and schedule | Ordinance passed November 2023; 2025 utility data due June 1, 2026 | Buildings in the City of Detroit that meet the ordinance threshold | Conditional relationship | [4] [5] |
| Historic District Commission review for exterior changes in designated local historic districts | review required: yes; covered work examples: exterior changes, sign installation or replacement, awnings, demolition, new construction, additions; sequence: confirm local historic district, request project review, obtain building permit if approvedregulatory process | Current commission authority and review scope displayed July 2026 | Local historic districts in Detroit | Conditional relationship | [6] [7] |
| City of Detroit supplier, bidding, contract, purchase-order, and invoicing workflow | bidding system: Bonfire / EUNA Procurement; contract invoice system: Oracle Supplier Portal; city council approval threshold usd: 50,000; signed contract or purchase order required before work: yesprocurement process and threshold | Current bidding, contract, purchase-order, invoicing, and supplier-support workflow displayed July 2026 | City of Detroit government procurement | Conditional relationship | [8] [9] |
| Future of Health institutional expansion in New Center | reported total investment usd up to: 3,000,000,000; hospital patient tower sqft minimum: 1,000,000; research center sqft: 335,000; housing units minimum: 600; retail and community space sqft: 33,000; parking spaces approximate: 2,000; named partners: Henry Ford Health, Michigan State University, Detroit Pistonsproject scope | Developer scope and 2025 annual-meeting information current on access date | New Center and Henry Ford Health campus area | Used in scoring | [10] [11] |
| Mean hourly wages for selected major occupational groups | all occupations detroit msa: 33.27; all occupations us: 33.54; food preparation and serving: 18.06; building and grounds cleaning maintenance: 19.17; office administrative support: 24.48; construction and extraction: 33.06; installation maintenance repair: 30.32; production: 26.53; additional values omittedUSD per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Michigan metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [13] |
| Detroit metropolitan labor-force and payroll conditions in June 2026 | labor force thousands: 2,205.6; employment thousands: 2,085.7; unemployment thousands: 119.9; unemployment rate percent: 5.4; total nonfarm jobs thousands: 2,063.9; total nonfarm 12 month change percent: -0.2mixed labor market metrics | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll employment data | Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, Michigan metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [15] |
| Michigan minimum hourly wage effective January 1, 2026 | standard hourly rate: 13.73; tipped hourly rate: 5.49; scheduled standard rate 2027: 15USD per hour | Minimum-wage schedule effective January 1, 2026 and January 1, 2027 | Michigan, including covered employment in Detroit | Context only | [14] |
| Annual normal snowfall | 45inches per year | 1991-2020 climate normals for Detroit | Detroit 1991-2020 climate normals | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Normal monthly minimum temperatures in core winter months | january f: 19.2; february f: 20.8; december f: 25.3degrees Fahrenheit | 1991-2020 climate normals for Detroit | Detroit 1991-2020 climate normals | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Detroit snow-removal levels, road responsibilities, parking restrictions, and sidewalk duties | city maintained major road miles: 673; residential street miles: 1,884; snow event levels: 3; level 3 threshold inches: 6; snow emergency parking restrictions possible: yes; business sidewalk clearing required: yesoperational policy | Current three-level snow-removal policy and parking guidance displayed July 2026 | Detroit streets and posted snow-emergency routes | Supports modeled relationship | [17] |
| Detroit metropolitan industrial market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate percent: 3.6; average asking rent usd per sqft: 7.94; net absorption sqft: -674,544; under construction sqft: 2,800,000; leasing activity sqft: 1,300,000mixed industrial market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Detroit metropolitan industrial market | Used in scoring | [18] |
| Detroit metropolitan office market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate percent: 19.4; average asking rent usd per sqft: 20.68; quarterly net absorption sqft: 93,000; downtown class a absorption sqft: 109,000; under construction sqft: 437,000mixed office market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Detroit metropolitan office market | Used in scoring | [19] |
| Downtown Detroit visits and unique visitors in 2025 | visits approximate: 31,000,000; unique visitors: 8,700,000; year over year visit change percent: 3.5visits and people | Calendar year 2025 | Downtown Detroit Business Improvement Zone and related downtown footprint | Used in scoring | [20] |
| Downtown weekday daytime population and worker activity in 2025 | weekday daytime population average: 86,300; weekday daily workers average: 32,000; workers relative to 2019 percent: 60; saturday external visits average: 143,000people and percent | Calendar year 2025 | Downtown Detroit Business Improvement Zone and related downtown footprint | Used in scoring | [20] |
| Downtown restaurants, retail, and personal-service businesses in mid-December 2025 | businesses: 301; new businesses opened in 2025: 26businesses | Calendar year 2025 | Downtown Detroit Business Improvement Zone and related downtown footprint | Context only | [20] |
| Downtown visitation during Detroit Tigers Opening Day on April 3, 2026 | visitors 10am to 6pm minimum: 200,000; year over year change percent: 24; comerica park attendance: 45,008; michigan origin share percent: 94people and percent | Detroit Tigers Opening Day on April 3, 2026 | Downtown Detroit during Opening Day 2026 | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| Gordie Howe International Bridge opened to traffic | opening date: 2026-07-27; status: open to trafficproject status | Bridge opening on July 27, 2026 | Detroit, Michigan to Windsor, Ontario | Context only | [22] |
| Windsor-Detroit truck-trade scale and alternative-route function | share of canada us truck trade percent approximate: 30; trade value per day usd minimum: 274,000,000; bridge operation: 24 7; alternative route added: yestrade and operating metrics | Port-of-entry facts published immediately before the July 2026 opening | Windsor-Detroit corridor | Context only | [23] |
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 70.75 after target-market demand +0.9 pts, territory quality -0.1 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -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.
- 1U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Detroit city, Michigan
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 QuickFacts period, Population density in the 2020 Census, and Median household income
- 22024 ACS Data Profile DP04: Selected Housing Characteristics — Detroit city, Michigan
Used for: Total housing units, Vacant housing units, Housing units constructed before 1960, and Housing units in one-unit detached structures
- 3Making Detroit Lead Safe
Used for: Estimated lead service lines in Detroit
- 4Energy and Water Benchmarking Ordinance
Used for: Annual energy and water reporting requirement for covered buildings
- 5Energy and Water Benchmarking Ordinance: Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: Annual energy and water reporting requirement for covered buildings
- 6Historic District Commission
Used for: Historic District Commission review for exterior changes in designated local historic districts
- 7Making Exterior Changes within Local Historic Districts
Used for: Historic District Commission review for exterior changes in designated local historic districts
- 8Supplier Support
Used for: City of Detroit supplier, bidding, contract, purchase-order, and invoicing workflow
- 9Contracting with the City of Detroit, Step by Step
Used for: City of Detroit supplier, bidding, contract, purchase-order, and invoicing workflow
- 10Future of Health — Detroit
Used for: Future of Health institutional expansion in New Center
- 11City receives $8.1M from MDOT for road and bridge upgrades near new Henry Ford Hospital
Used for: Future of Health institutional expansion in New Center
- 12
- 13Occupational Employment and Wages in Detroit-Warren-Dearborn — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for selected major occupational groups
- 14Minimum Wage and Overtime FAQ
Used for: Michigan minimum hourly wage effective January 1, 2026
- 15Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Economy at a Glance
Used for: Detroit metropolitan labor-force and payroll conditions in June 2026
- 16U.S. Climate Normals Updated for the 1991-2020 Period
Used for: Annual normal snowfall and Normal monthly minimum temperatures in core winter months
- 17Snow / Ice Management
Used for: Detroit snow-removal levels, road responsibilities, parking restrictions, and sidewalk duties
- 18Detroit Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Detroit metropolitan industrial market conditions in Q2 2026
- 19Detroit Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Detroit metropolitan office market conditions in Q2 2026
- 20Downtown Detroit, 2025 by The Numbers
Used for: Downtown Detroit visits and unique visitors in 2025, Downtown weekday daytime population and worker activity in 2025, and Downtown restaurants, retail, and personal-service businesses in mid-December 2025
- 21Everyone Wins on Opening Day
Used for: Downtown visitation during Detroit Tigers Opening Day on April 3, 2026
- 22Gov. Whitmer Marks Official Opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge to Traffic
Used for: Gordie Howe International Bridge opened to traffic
- 23Canada Border Services Agency: Gordie Howe International Bridge Port of Entry
Used for: Windsor-Detroit truck-trade scale and alternative-route function
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.