70.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Replacement and repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity 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
24Sources used
18Primary sources
34Local 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
0.7 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ActionCOACH 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 0.7 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 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Predominantly pre-1980 housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while increasing legacy-system service complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [6] [1]
Median owner-occupied home value is $124,200 and owner occupancy is 36.6 percent, which could be misread as a weak property-service market.
The City housing plan reports that more than 90 percent of owner-occupied units and 85 percent of renter-occupied units were built before 1980 and identifies substantial rehabilitation need from older stock and deferred maintenance. That age profile supports repair, replacement, restoration, inspection, and licensed-trade demand, while the affordability profile limits the ability to treat every need as immediately discretionary or easily financeable. [4] [6] [1]
skilled-trade-route-service
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 labor and staffing friction. [15] [16] [5] [4] [6] [2] [1] [18] [17]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Predominantly pre-1980 housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while increasing legacy-system service complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 5-year profile: 24,130 housing units [5]
- Share of owner- and renter-occupied housing described as built before 1980 in the City housing plan: owner occupied: greater than 90; renter occupied: 85 percent of occupied units [6] [1]
- City housing plan identifies high rehabilitation need associated with older stock and deferred maintenance: yes boolean [6] [1]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large health-sector presence supports institutional service demand and creates targeted overlap with frontline and facility labor3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022: 1,432,540,000 usd [4]
- Education and health services nonfarm employment in June 2026: 74,700 jobs [15]
- Mean hourly wages for selected occupation groups in May 2025: all occupations: 30.61; food preparation and serving: 16.25; healthcare support: 17.38; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 18.73; office and administrative support: 24.08; construction and extraction: 32.51; installation maintenance and repair: 29.18; transportation and material moving: 23.24; additional values omitted usd per hour [16]
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Healthcare-overlap labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
State-government concentration creates a material institutional account base and a professional counterpart ecosystem3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Government nonfarm employment in June 2026: 58,300 jobs [15]
- Professional and business services nonfarm employment in June 2026: 50,100 jobs [15]
- Change in Dauphin County Commonwealth employees reporting to the office three or more days per week during 2025: 56 percent increase [19]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Household affordability constraints can reduce demand for discretionary consumer concepts1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
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 alignment71.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.83 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| 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 | +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 | 71.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 70.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
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 |
| Target-market demand | +0.4 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +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 | 70.75 |
| 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
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.65 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 | 70.65 |
| 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 +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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
- 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
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 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 | -0.7 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.2 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 70.14 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.09 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 70.09 |
| 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 +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 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 | -0.7 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.09 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 69.91 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.0 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 | -1.0 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| 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 | 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 | 69.84 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.0 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 | -1.0 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | -1.0 |
| 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 | 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
- 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
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| 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 | 69.75 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 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 |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.39 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 | +0.7 |
| 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 | 69.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.42 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
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 69.58 |
| 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
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 pts Target-market demand
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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.80 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | 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 | 69.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.5 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 | +1.7 |
| 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 | +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 | 71.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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 #2 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Median Gross Rent In The 2020 2024 Period1,062 usd per month
- Median Household Income In 2024 Dollars For The 2020 2024 Period48,099 usd per year
- Persons In Poverty In The 2020 2024 Period30.5 percent of people
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #9 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank8
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #13 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank11
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.2 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.1 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.0 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.7 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 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 3 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #3 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank3
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 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 WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#3 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#4 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#6 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#8 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#9 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#10 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#11 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#12 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#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: [4] [5] [6] [15] [19] [20] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [4] [5] [7] [8] [1] [3]Competitive environment: [4] [15] [20] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [15] [16] [17] [18] [6] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [23] [22] [21] [16] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [24] [7] [8] [13] [14] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [20] [15] [4] [3]Referral ecosystem: [15] [19] [20] [4] [3]Territory quality: [9] [10] [7] [8] [23] [24] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [9] [10] [11] [8] [12] [13] [14] [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 | +1.7 pts | — | -0.2 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.3 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | — | — | +0.4 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | — | -0.2 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.6 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.4 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.8 pts | -1.0 pts | — |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.8 pts | -1.0 pts | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.2 pts | — |
| #12 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.7 pts | -1.1 pts | — |
| #13 Aire Serv | — | +0.8 pts | -1.2 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.5 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
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 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
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 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.7 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.9–70.1
- Category average
- 70.0
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
PuroClean69.9
Metric registry
The 34 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 | 50,522people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.9percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Context only | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period | 22,137households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Context only | [4] [5] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 5-year profile | 24,130housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates and 2020 Census profile measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate in the 2020-2024 period | 36.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units in the 2020-2024 period | 124,200usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Supports research conclusion | [4] |
| Median gross rent in the 2020-2024 period | 1,062usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars for the 2020-2024 period | 48,099usd per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [4] [5] |
| Persons in poverty in the 2020-2024 period | 30.5percent of people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Share of owner- and renter-occupied housing described as built before 1980 in the City housing plan | owner occupied: greater than 90; renter occupied: 85percent of occupied units | Program Year 2024 housing and community-development conditions | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Supports modeled relationship | [6] [1] |
| City housing plan identifies high rehabilitation need associated with older stock and deferred maintenance | yesboolean | Program Year 2024 housing and community-development conditions | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [6] [1] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,432,540,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Supports modeled relationship | [4] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue in 2022 | 276,031,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 business measures | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Context only | [4] |
| Government nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 58,300jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor force and nonfarm employment; extracted August 7, 2026 | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Education and health services nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 74,700jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor force and nonfarm employment; extracted August 7, 2026 | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Professional and business services nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 50,100jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor force and nonfarm employment; extracted August 7, 2026 | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.6percent | June 2026 preliminary labor force and nonfarm employment; extracted August 7, 2026 | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | Context only | [15] |
| Mean hourly wages for selected occupation groups in May 2025 | all occupations: 30.61; food preparation and serving: 16.25; healthcare support: 17.38; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 18.73; office and administrative support: 24.08; construction and extraction: 32.51; installation maintenance and repair: 29.18; transportation and material moving: 23.24; additional values omittedusd per hour | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Transportation and material moving occupations as a share of area employment in May 2025 | 13.2percent of area employment | May 2025 occupational employment and wage estimates | Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| UPMC announced an $18 minimum starting wage for entry-level positions at Harrisburg-area hospitals and related facilities by January 2025 | 18usd per hour | Policy commitment for Harrisburg-area UPMC sites to reach an $18 entry-level minimum by January 2025 | UPMC Harrisburg-area facilities | Supports modeled relationship | [17] [2] |
| UPMC support-service role families overlap with franchise frontline and facility labor | role families: environmental services housekeeping, food services, maintenance facilities, patient transport, safety security; maintenance examples: landscaping, carpentry, electrical; occupational overlap confidence: moderate; limitations: The current careers page identifies role families but does not state that every role or Harrisburg opening is paid exactly at the entry-level minimum.role families | Current career-area descriptions accessed August 2026 | UPMC system, with relevance to Harrisburg-area facilities | Supports modeled relationship | [18] [17] |
| Change in Dauphin County Commonwealth employees reporting to the office three or more days per week during 2025 | 56percent increase | 2025 Dauphin County office-attendance changes and January 2026 statewide telework status | Dauphin County, Pennsylvania | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| Additional Commonwealth employees working in the office at least two days per week, with nearly 60% located in Dauphin County | additional employees: 5,700; dauphin county share: nearly 60 percentemployees and share | 2025 Dauphin County office-attendance changes and January 2026 statewide telework status | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Dauphin County | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| Commonwealth suppliers use formal registration and bidding systems including eMarketplace and JAGGAER | yesboolean | Current supplier registration and Commonwealth bidding systems accessed August 2026 | Commonwealth of Pennsylvania | Supports modeled relationship | [20] |
| Municipal historic districts in Harrisburg | 6districts | Current municipal historic-district framework accessed August 2026 | Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Exterior alterations visible from a public right of way in municipal historic districts are subject to historic regulations; non-in-kind work can require a Certificate of Appropriateness review | yesboolean | Current municipal historic-district framework accessed August 2026 | Municipal Historic Districts, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania | Conditional relationship | [9] [10] [11] [3] |
| NFIP premium discounts associated with Harrisburg Community Rating System Level 6 | 100 year AE A AO: 20; 500 year X: 10percent discount | Current floodplain and Community Rating System information accessed August 2026 | Mapped Harrisburg floodplain properties | Conditional relationship | [7] [1] |
| Threshold used in the floodplain code for substantial improvement | 50percent of market value | Current codified floodplain rules accessed August 2026 | Harrisburg special floodplain areas | Conditional relationship | [8] [3] |
| Business Privilege Tax rate on service gross receipts up to the first $3.3 million under the cited schedule | rate mills: 2; rate usd per 1000 gross receipts: 2; threshold usd: 3,300,000tax rate and threshold | Current gross-receipts tax rules accessed August 2026 | City of Harrisburg taxable service activity | Context only | [12] [3] |
| Covered projects with permanent stormwater BMPs can be subject to recorded operations-and-maintenance obligations and continuing owner responsibility | yesboolean | Current stormwater-management requirements accessed August 2026 | Harrisburg projects subject to permanent BMP requirements | Context only | [13] [14] [2] |
| Commercial vehicles and trailers face parking restrictions on residentially zoned streets and additional location-based restrictions, with delivery and active-construction exceptions | yesboolean | Current commercial-vehicle parking rules accessed August 2026 | City of Harrisburg streets, conditional on zoning, vehicle, and activity | Conditional relationship | [23] [3] |
| Downtown on-street metered parking spaces described by the City | minimum: 1,000spaces | Current on-street parking framework accessed August 2026 | Downtown Harrisburg | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| PennDOT MPMS State Street Bridge project 118027 is active and classified as bridge rehabilitation | project id: 118,027; status: Active; project length miles: 0.25; improvement type: Bridge Rehabilitation; location: State Street over Cameron Streetproject record | Current project record accessed August 2026 | State Street over Cameron Street, Harrisburg | Context only | [21] [2] |
| Harrisburg industrial market conditions in Q1 2026 | overall vacancy percent: 5.9; asking rent usd per sf: 8.88; under construction sqft approx: 1,300,000; twelve month net absorption sqft: 370,296; harrisburg area east vacancy percent: 6.7; harrisburg area west vacancy percent: 5.6market metrics | Q1 2026 Central Pennsylvania office, industrial, and retail market conditions | Harrisburg industrial market and Harrisburg Area East/West submarkets | Context only | [24] |
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 71.83 after target-market demand +1.7 pts, referral ecosystem +0.3 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. Sub-Markets: A Utility Delta AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Share of owner- and renter-occupied housing described as built before 1980 in the City housing plan, City housing plan identifies high rehabilitation need associated with older stock and deferred maintenance, and NFIP premium discounts associated with Harrisburg Community Rating System Level 6
- 2Forensic Municipal Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Capital FrictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: UPMC announced an $18 minimum starting wage for entry-level positions at Harrisburg-area hospitals and related facilities by January 2025, Covered projects with permanent stormwater BMPs can be subject to recorded operations-and-maintenance obligations and continuing owner responsibility, and PennDOT MPMS State Street Bridge project 118027 is active and classified as bridge rehabilitation
- 3Franchise data - remake - des.csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Exterior alterations visible from a public right of way in municipal historic districts are subject to historic regulations; non-in-kind work can require a Certificate of Appropriateness review, Threshold used in the floodplain code for substantial improvement, Business Privilege Tax rate on service gross receipts up to the first $3.3 million under the cited schedule, and Commercial vehicles and trailers face parking restrictions on residentially zoned streets and additional location-based restrictions, with delivery and active-construction exceptions
- 4QuickFacts: Harrisburg city, Pennsylvania
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 estimate period, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate in the 2020-2024 period, and Median value of owner-occupied housing units in the 2020-2024 period
- 5Census Bureau Profile: Harrisburg city, Pennsylvania
Used for: Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period, Total housing units in the 2024 ACS 5-year profile, and Median household income in 2024 dollars for the 2020-2024 period
- 6Harrisburg Draft 2024 Annual Action Plan
Used for: Share of owner- and renter-occupied housing described as built before 1980 in the City housing plan and City housing plan identifies high rehabilitation need associated with older stock and deferred maintenance
- 7Floodplain
Used for: NFIP premium discounts associated with Harrisburg Community Rating System Level 6
- 8Floodplain Overlay District, Chapter 7-315
Used for: Threshold used in the floodplain code for substantial improvement
- 9Historic Preservation
Used for: Municipal historic districts in Harrisburg and Exterior alterations visible from a public right of way in municipal historic districts are subject to historic regulations; non-in-kind work can require a Certificate of Appropriateness review
- 10Architectural Review Board
Used for: Exterior alterations visible from a public right of way in municipal historic districts are subject to historic regulations; non-in-kind work can require a Certificate of Appropriateness review
- 11Planning and Zoning
Used for: Exterior alterations visible from a public right of way in municipal historic districts are subject to historic regulations; non-in-kind work can require a Certificate of Appropriateness review
- 12Business Privilege and Mercantile Tax, Chapter 5-715
Used for: Business Privilege Tax rate on service gross receipts up to the first $3.3 million under the cited schedule
- 13Stormwater Management Ordinance, § 9-915
Used for: Covered projects with permanent stormwater BMPs can be subject to recorded operations-and-maintenance obligations and continuing owner responsibility
- 14Stormwater Management Ordinance, § 9-917
Used for: Covered projects with permanent stormwater BMPs can be subject to recorded operations-and-maintenance obligations and continuing owner responsibility
- 15Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Government nonfarm employment in June 2026, Education and health services nonfarm employment in June 2026, Professional and business services nonfarm employment in June 2026, and Unemployment rate in June 2026
- 16Occupational Employment and Wages in Harrisburg-Carlisle — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for selected occupation groups in May 2025 and Transportation and material moving occupations as a share of area employment in May 2025
- 17UPMC to Raise Minimum Starting Wage for Employees to $18 an Hour by 2025
Used for: UPMC announced an $18 minimum starting wage for entry-level positions at Harrisburg-area hospitals and related facilities by January 2025 and UPMC support-service role families overlap with franchise frontline and facility labor
- 18Facilities, Hospitality & Support Services Careers at UPMC
Used for: UPMC support-service role families overlap with franchise frontline and facility labor
- 19Shapiro Administration Brings More Employees Back to the Office, Modernizes State Workspaces, and Saves Taxpayers Millions
Used for: Change in Dauphin County Commonwealth employees reporting to the office three or more days per week during 2025 and Additional Commonwealth employees working in the office at least two days per week, with nearly 60% located in Dauphin County
- 20Supplier Service Center
Used for: Commonwealth suppliers use formal registration and bidding systems including eMarketplace and JAGGAER
- 21Project 118027: State Street Bridge
Used for: PennDOT MPMS State Street Bridge project 118027 is active and classified as bridge rehabilitation
- 22Parking Enforcement
Used for: Downtown on-street metered parking spaces described by the City
- 23Traffic and Parking, Chapter 3-131
Used for: Commercial vehicles and trailers face parking restrictions on residentially zoned streets and additional location-based restrictions, with delivery and active-construction exceptions
- 24Q1 2026 Outlook Market Report
Used for: Harrisburg industrial market conditions in Q1 2026
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.