70.3 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Fort Collins, Colorado
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Fort Collins, Colorado. University and government account demand was a leading positive mechanism. Frontline labor pressure 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
25Sources used
20Primary sources
41Local 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
0.6 points average among 6 affected concepts
0.7 points average reduction among 9 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Fort Collins, Colorado
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. University and government account demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average. Jan-Pro International was especially relationship-sensitive: removing frontline labor pressure moved it from #13 to #4 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Fort Collins, Colorado
Large university and public-sector institutional base supports institution-facing demand
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Colorado State University fall 2025 enrollment: total students: 34,412; main campus students: 29,418. [5] [7]
Frontline food-service labor faces a measurable local wage premium in a relatively tight labor market
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations: fort collins msa: 20.35; united states: 17.86; local employment: 18,430; local employment share percent: 10.9 USD per hour and jobs. [8]
Colorado Geological Survey notes that expansive clays can expand up to 20 percent by volume and exert up to 30,000 psf
The CGS values establish the physical severity possible from expansive clay and the Front Range applicability of the hazard, but they are not parcel-level measurements and should not be applied to every Fort Collins property. The supported model effect is therefore service demand for exposed properties, while site-specific geotechnical conditions remain a diligence requirement. [10] [11] [12] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large university and public-sector institutional base supports institution-facing demand1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Expansive-clay hazard creates property inspection, moisture, and foundation-related service demand where susceptible soils are present1 modeled effect
Moisture and foundation service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Frontline food-service labor faces a measurable local wage premium in a relatively tight labor market1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Timed downtown parking and RP3 neighborhood controls can constrain long service stops and customer/staff parking in affected zones1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Professional, research, government, and university activity supports a referral base while institutional selling can require formal procurement3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Colorado State University FY2025 research expenditures: 622,000,000 USD [7]
- Professional and business services employment in June 2026: jobs: 23,800; year over year change percent: 9.2 jobs and percent [9]
- Government employment in June 2026: 44,500 jobs [9]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.42 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.42 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.85 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.84 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.84 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.63 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.63 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.36 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 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
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.31 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.28 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.28 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mister Sparky Electric
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.87 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.0 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.92 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
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | -2.0 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.07 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.42 |
| 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.
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 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Colorado State University Fall 2025 Enrollmenttotal students: 34,412; main campus students: 29,418
- Colorado State University Fy2025 Research Expenditures622,000,000 USD
- Government Employment In June 202644,500 jobs
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.2 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #7 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted5 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Colorado Geological Survey Expansive Clay Maximum Expansion And Force Rangesmaximum volume expansion percent: 20; maximum force psf: 30,000; clay examples: bentonite, montmorillonite percent and pounds per square foot
- Current Detailed Geologic Mapping Is Available For The Fort Collins Quadranglescale: 1:24,000; report: Open-File Report 24-01 map record
Concepts helped most
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.8 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.8 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 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 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #13 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.7 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Unemployment Rate In June 20263.6 percent
- Leisure And Hospitality Employment In June 2026jobs: 24,700; year over year change percent: 5.6 jobs and percent
- Mean Hourly Wage For Food Preparation And Serving Related Occupationsfort collins msa: 20.35; united states: 17.86; local employment: 18,430; local employment share percent: 10.9 USD per hour and jobs
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-2.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 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, 9 concepts changed position. PuroClean 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 rank9
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#2 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#8
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#7 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#9 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#11 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [7] [9] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [10] [11] [12] [14] [15] [1]Competitive environment: [25] [4] [9]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [17] [18] [19] [20] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [21] [22] [13] [15] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [23] [24] [25] [4] [7] [9]Referral ecosystem: [7] [5] [9] [23] [24]Territory quality: [5] [6] [17] [18] [19] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [15] [16] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.2 pts | — | -0.4 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | — | — | +0.3 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.3 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +0.4 pts | — | -0.5 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #7 PuroClean | — | +0.8 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.8 pts | -1.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | — | — | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | — | — | -0.2 pts | — |
| #13 Jan-Pro International | +0.9 pts | — | -2.0 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -1.1 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ZOOM DRAIN; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Fort Collins, Colorado
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.3Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Fort Collins, Colorado
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.3 to 70.3. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.3. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.8 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.3–70.3
- Category average
- 70.3
PuroClean70.3
Rainbow International Restoration70.3
Metric registry
The 41 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 | 171,500people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 71,768households | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 51.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Median selected monthly owner costs with a mortgage | 2,287USD per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Median gross rent | 1,690USD per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 3,733,040,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,733,239,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Mean travel time to work | 19.5minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, transportation, and 2022 economic data | Fort Collins, Colorado | Context only | [4] |
| Colorado State University fall 2025 enrollment | total students: 34,412; main campus students: 29,418students | Fall 2025 census enrollment | Colorado State University, Fort Collins | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Colorado State University spring 2026 enrollment | total students: 32,152; main campus students: 27,398students | Spring 2026 census enrollment | Colorado State University, Fort Collins | Context only | [6] |
| Colorado State University FY2025 research expenditures | 622,000,000USD | Fall 2025 enrollment and FY2025 research expenditures | Colorado State University, Fort Collins | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.6percent | Labor force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 187,500jobs | Labor force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Context only | [9] |
| Professional and business services employment in June 2026 | jobs: 23,800; year over year change percent: 9.2jobs and percent | Labor force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Government employment in June 2026 | 44,500jobs | Labor force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026 | jobs: 23,100; year over year change percent: 6jobs and percent | Labor force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Leisure and hospitality employment in June 2026 | jobs: 24,700; year over year change percent: 5.6jobs and percent | Labor force and nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations | fort collins msa: 20.35; united states: 17.86; local employment: 18,430; local employment share percent: 10.9USD per hour and jobs | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Fort Collins-Loveland mean wage premium for food preparation and serving occupations versus the United States | 13.94percent | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance, and repair occupations | fort collins msa: 32.39; united states: 30.44USD per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations | fort collins msa: 30.3; united states: 31.42USD per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Fort Collins-Loveland, Colorado MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Colorado Geological Survey expansive-clay maximum expansion and force ranges | maximum volume expansion percent: 20; maximum force psf: 30,000; clay examples: bentonite, montmorillonitepercent and pounds per square foot | Current geologic-hazard guidance accessed August 2026 | Colorado populated areas including the Front Range | Used in scoring | [10] [11] |
| Current detailed geologic mapping is available for the Fort Collins quadrangle | scale: 1:24,000; report: Open-File Report 24-01map record | 2025 geologic mapping | Fort Collins quadrangle, Larimer County, Colorado | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Transportation Capital Expansion Fee for nonresidential retail/commercial development | 11,068USD per 1000 square feet | Fees effective January 1, 2026 | Fort Collins projects subject to TCEF | Context only | [13] |
| Transportation Capital Expansion Fee for nonresidential office and other services | 7,558USD per 1000 square feet | Fees effective January 1, 2026 | Fort Collins projects subject to TCEF | Context only | [13] |
| Transportation Capital Expansion Fee for nonresidential industrial development | 3,205USD per 1000 square feet | Fees effective January 1, 2026 | Fort Collins projects subject to TCEF | Context only | [13] |
| Current Water Supply Requirement fee | per acre foot usd: 63,800; per gallon usd: 0.196; redevelopment rule: not required unless water service increasesfee schedule | Fees effective January 1, 2026 | Fort Collins Utilities projects subject to Water Supply Requirement | Context only | [13] |
| Building Energy and Water Scoring annual reporting threshold and exemptions | minimum building size sqft: 5,000; covered types: commercial, multifamily; exempt types: industrial, agricultural, multifamily under 3 stories, row homes, townhomes; reporting deadline: June 1 for prior-year energy userule threshold | Current annual reporting requirements and 2026 portal process | Fort Collins covered buildings | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| 2024 International Codes with local amendments apply to permits submitted on or after April 1, 2026 | effective date: 2026-04-01; code cycle: 2,024code status | 2024 International Codes and local amendments effective April 1, 2026 | Fort Collins construction projects | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Citywide prohibited permanent sign types include permanent off-premises signs and billboards | permanent off premises signs, billboardsprohibited sign types | Current Land Use Code accessed August 2026 | Fort Collins | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Electronic message center controls | maximum emc share of sign area percent: 50; maximum signs with emc per street frontage: 1; minimum spacing from most residential property ft: 100; freestanding pole sign emc allowed: no; minimum message duration seconds: 60rule thresholds | Current Land Use Code accessed August 2026 | Fort Collins, with district-specific exceptions and additional standards | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Most RP3 zones allow non-residents to park once per day per zone for up to two hours | 2hours per day per zone | Current RP3 rules accessed August 2026 | Most Fort Collins RP3 zones | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Certain CSU stadium-event RP3 restrictions begin four hours before qualifying events and continue through the event | 4hours before event | Current RP3 rules accessed August 2026 | Designated RP3 stadium event zones near Colorado State University | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Two-hour street parking is enforced in downtown time-restricted spaces Monday through Saturday during posted enforcement hours | 2hours | Current parking rules accessed August 2026 | Downtown Fort Collins time-restricted street spaces | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| College Avenue and Trilby Road major reconstruction remains active with lane and partial/full closure impacts | estimated project value usd range: 12,000,000, 14,000,000; completion date: 2026-12-31; current phase: east side roadway work in 2026; impact types: lane closures, partial closures, full closure during phasesproject status | Active construction in 2026 with estimated completion December 31, 2026 | College Avenue (U.S | Conditional relationship | [19] [20] |
| Northern Colorado industrial market H1 2026 conditions reported by CBRE | average asking rent usd per sqft nnn: 11.81; vacancy change from year end 2025 basis points: -90; construction pipeline sqft: 80,000; availability description: limited overall availabilitymarket metrics | First half of 2026 | Northern Colorado industrial market | Context only | [21] |
| Northern Colorado 5,000-200,000 SF industrial and flex market Q1 2026 conditions reported by Matthews | vacancy percent: 9.5; average asking rent usd per sqft: 14.3; landlord concessions: increasingmarket metrics | First quarter of 2026; 5,000-200,000-square-foot industrial and flex properties | Northern Colorado industrial and flex properties from 5,000 to 200,000 square feet | Context only | [22] |
| City purchasing processes by purchase value | under 7500: department purchase without Purchasing Department process; 7500 to 60000: at least three vendor quotes through informal competition; over 60000: formal competitive processUSD thresholds | Current purchasing process accessed August 2026 | City of Fort Collins agency procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [23] |
| Colorado State University uses BidNet/Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing when solicitation thresholds require competitive procurement | yesboolean | Current supplier solicitation process accessed August 2026 | Colorado State University | Supports modeled relationship | [24] |
| County Business Patterns supports establishment counts by detailed NAICS and county, MSA, and ZIP Code geographies | yesboolean | Calendar year 2023 | U.S | Context only | [25] |
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 whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.42 after target-market demand +1.2 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.4 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 claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Jurisdictional Risk and Structural Friction Analysis: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-KillersInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - mod(6).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Fort Collins city, Colorado
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, and Median selected monthly owner costs with a mortgage
- 5CSU Fort Collins: Enrollment and Student Success (Census Fall 2025)
Used for: Colorado State University fall 2025 enrollment
- 6CSU Fort Collins Enrollment and Student Success Census Spring 2026
Used for: Colorado State University spring 2026 enrollment
- 7CSU Institutional Profile 2024-2025
Used for: Colorado State University FY2025 research expenditures
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Fort Collins-Loveland — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations, Fort Collins-Loveland mean wage premium for food preparation and serving occupations versus the United States, Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance, and repair occupations, and Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations
- 9Fort Collins-Loveland, CO Economy at a Glance
Used for: Unemployment rate in June 2026, Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, Professional and business services employment in June 2026, Government employment in June 2026, and Education and health services employment in June 2026
- 10Expansive Soil and Rock
Used for: Colorado Geological Survey expansive-clay maximum expansion and force ranges
- 11Potentially Swelling Soil and Rock in the Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado
Used for: Colorado Geological Survey expansive-clay maximum expansion and force ranges
- 12Geologic Map of the Fort Collins Quadrangle, Larimer County, Colorado
Used for: Current detailed geologic mapping is available for the Fort Collins quadrangle
- 13Fee Schedules
Used for: Transportation Capital Expansion Fee for nonresidential retail/commercial development, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee for nonresidential office and other services, Transportation Capital Expansion Fee for nonresidential industrial development, and Current Water Supply Requirement fee
- 14Building Energy and Water Scoring (BEWS)
Used for: Building Energy and Water Scoring annual reporting threshold and exemptions
- 15Building Code
Used for: 2024 International Codes with local amendments apply to permits submitted on or after April 1, 2026
- 16Land Use Code Article 5 — General Development and Site Design, Division 5.16 Signs
Used for: Citywide prohibited permanent sign types include permanent off-premises signs and billboards and Electronic message center controls
- 17Residential Parking Permit Program (RP3)
Used for: Most RP3 zones allow non-residents to park once per day per zone for up to two hours and Certain CSU stadium-event RP3 restrictions begin four hours before qualifying events and continue through the event
- 18Parking Rules
Used for: Two-hour street parking is enforced in downtown time-restricted spaces Monday through Saturday during posted enforcement hours
- 19College and Trilby Intersection Improvements
Used for: College Avenue and Trilby Road major reconstruction remains active with lane and partial/full closure impacts
- 20Construction and Traffic Impacts
Used for: College Avenue and Trilby Road major reconstruction remains active with lane and partial/full closure impacts
- 21Northern Colorado Industrial Figures H1 2026
Used for: Northern Colorado industrial market H1 2026 conditions reported by CBRE
- 22Northern Colorado Industrial Market Report Q1 2026
Used for: Northern Colorado 5,000-200,000 SF industrial and flex market Q1 2026 conditions reported by Matthews
- 23Bids and Contracts
Used for: City purchasing processes by purchase value
- 24Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing Information
Used for: Colorado State University uses BidNet/Rocky Mountain E-Purchasing when solicitation thresholds require competitive procurement
- 25County Business Patterns: 2023
Used for: County Business Patterns supports establishment counts by detailed NAICS and county, MSA, and ZIP Code geographies
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.