69.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Henderson, Nevada
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Henderson, Nevada. Household service 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
28Sources used
20Primary sources
29Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.8 points average among 8 affected concepts
0.4 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Henderson, Nevada
Aire Serv, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and Mr. Rooter produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.8 points on average. Frontline labor pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.4 points on average. Workout Anytime was especially relationship-sensitive: removing fixed-location occupancy cost pressure moved it from #14 to #8 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 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.1 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Henderson, Nevada
Recent housing-unit growth expands the residential service base
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households and owner-occupied housing share: households: 132,573; owner occupied rate percent: 66.1 households and percent. [5] [7] [6]
Regional food-service employment concentration creates directly overlapping frontline hiring competition
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.4 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Food preparation and serving employment concentration in the Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas MSA: employment: 167,090; share local percent: 14.7; share us percent: 8.8; location quotient: 1.67; mean hourly wage local usd: 18.41; mean hourly wage us usd: 17.86 employment percent lq and usd per hour. [9] [10]
scheduled-home-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [9] [5] [6] [10] [8] [7] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent housing-unit growth expands the residential service base1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Regional food-service employment concentration creates directly overlapping frontline hiring competition1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Henderson retail asking rents are elevated within a tight Southern Nevada retail market1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal estate and site feasibility
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 alignment71.5
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.47 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.2 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 |
| +1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.39 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 | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
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 +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.20 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 | +0.8 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
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 +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 |
| +0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.67 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.23 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 70.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.1 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 | 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 | -0.1 |
| 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
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
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 | -0.20 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 | 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.80 |
| 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 -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.30 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.70 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.91 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 | 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 | -0.9 |
| 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 | 69.09 |
| 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
- 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
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.0 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 |
| -1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.98 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 | 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 | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.1 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -2.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| 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 | -2.1 |
| 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 | 67.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Aire Serv
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 71.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #2 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Households And Owner Occupied Housing Sharehouseholds: 132,573; owner occupied rate percent: 66.1 households and percent
- Housing Units On July 1, 2025152,368 housing units
- Housing Units On July 1, 2024148,806 housing units
Concepts helped most
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.2 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.8 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, 4 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #2 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Energy Star Age Threshold To Consider Replacement Of Heat Pumps Or Air Conditioners10 years
- Occupied Housing Concentrated In The 1990 2009 Construction Erabuilt 1990 1999 percent: 29.5; built 2000 2009 percent: 30.7; combined 1990 2009 percent: 60.2; built 1990 1999 units: 39,109; built 2000 2009 units: 40,700 percent and units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.4 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 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 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #10 to #8, 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 rank6
What we observed
- Food Preparation And Serving Employment Concentration In The Las Vegas Henderson North Las Vegas Msaemployment: 167,090; share local percent: 14.7; share us percent: 8.8; location quotient: 1.67; mean hourly wage local usd: 18.41; mean hourly wage us usd: 17.86 employment percent lq and usd per hour
- Henderson Unemployment Rate In June 2026labor force: 175,571; employed: 166,489; unemployed: 9,082; unemployment rate percent: 5.2; us unadjusted rate percent: 4.4 people and percent
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.5 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected-1.0 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Henderson Retail Asking Rent And Relative Vacancy Position In Q2 2026asking rent usd per sf month nnn: 2.76; metro asking rent usd per sf month nnn: 2.12; metro vacancy percent: 4.5; henderson vacancy position: below valley average mixed retail metrics
- Las Vegas Retail Market Indicators In Q2 2026vacancy rate percent: 4.79; average nnn asking rate usd per sf month: 2.97; under construction sf: 1,662,284 mixed retail metrics
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-2.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.9 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
-0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo 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 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#3 Mr. RooterStable · tested #2–#3
#4 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #4–#5
#6 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#7 Tiger AdjustersStable · tested #6–#7
#8 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#9 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#10 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#11 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#12 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#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] [28] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [8] [1] [24] [25]Competitive environment: [26] [27] [28] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [10] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [15] [16] [17] [23] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [14] [11] [12] [21] [22] [24] [25] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [26] [27] [28] [5] [3]Referral ecosystem: [28] [26] [27] [3]Territory quality: [6] [4] [12] [15] [18] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [24] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.2 pts | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #3 Mr. Rooter | +0.8 pts | +0.5 pts | — | — |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.7 pts | +0.5 pts | — | — |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.8 pts | +0.4 pts | — | — |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +0.9 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #8 ActionCOACH | — | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #9 City Wide | — | — | -0.2 pts | — |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | — | — | — | -0.9 pts |
| #13 Jan-Pro International | — | — | -1.0 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | +0.6 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -2.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Aire Serv, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, ActionCOACH, PuroClean; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Henderson, Nevada
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Henderson, Nevada
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.6 to 69.7. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.6–69.7
- Category average
- 69.7
PuroClean69.7
Rainbow International Restoration69.6
Metric registry
The 29 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current City of Henderson population estimate | 369,167people | Current City estimate plus U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2020-2024 characteristics | Henderson, Nevada | Context only | [4] |
| Households and owner-occupied housing share | households: 132,573; owner occupied rate percent: 66.1households and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 Economic Census sales and receipts | Henderson city, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] [7] |
| Housing units on July 1, 2025 | 152,368housing units | July 1, 2025 and historic semiannual housing counts including July 1, 2024 | Henderson, Nevada | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing units on July 1, 2024 | 148,806housing units | July 1, 2025 and historic semiannual housing counts including July 1, 2024 | Henderson, Nevada | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025 | 2.39percent | July 1, 2025 and historic semiannual housing counts including July 1, 2024 | Henderson, Nevada | Used in scoring | [6] |
| ZIP 89011 housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025 | 12.03percent | July 1, 2025 and historic semiannual housing counts including July 1, 2024 | Henderson ZIP 89011 | Conditional relationship | [6] |
| ZIP 89014 housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025 | 0percent | July 1, 2025 and historic semiannual housing counts including July 1, 2024 | Henderson ZIP 89014 | Conditional relationship | [6] |
| ZIP 89044 housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025 | 4.64percent | July 1, 2025 and historic semiannual housing counts including July 1, 2024 | Henderson ZIP 89044 | Conditional relationship | [6] |
| Occupied housing concentrated in the 1990-2009 construction era | built 1990 1999 percent: 29.5; built 2000 2009 percent: 30.7; combined 1990 2009 percent: 60.2; built 1990 1999 units: 39,109; built 2000 2009 units: 40,700percent and units | 2025 Henderson housing report using ACS 2024 five-year data and other cited state/local sources | Henderson, Nevada | Used in scoring | [7] [1] |
| ENERGY STAR age threshold to consider replacement of heat pumps or air conditioners | 10years | Current consumer guidance accessed August 2026 | United States ENERGY STAR guidance | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Food preparation and serving employment concentration in the Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas MSA | employment: 167,090; share local percent: 14.7; share us percent: 8.8; location quotient: 1.67; mean hourly wage local usd: 18.41; mean hourly wage us usd: 17.86employment percent lq and usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics; release reissued June 24, 2026 | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, Nevada MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Henderson unemployment rate in June 2026 | labor force: 175,571; employed: 166,489; unemployed: 9,082; unemployment rate percent: 5.2; us unadjusted rate percent: 4.4people and percent | June 2026 Local Area Unemployment Statistics | Henderson, Nevada | Used in scoring | [10] |
| S/SE Henderson industrial market conditions in Q2 2026 | inventory sf: 26,598,731; available sf: 3,298,243; under construction sf: 2,911,137; vacancy rate percent: 12.4; market rent usd per sf month: 1.18; twelve month net absorption sf: 419,000mixed industrial metrics | Q2 2026 | S/SE Henderson industrial submarket | Context only | [11] |
| Las Vegas industrial vacancy by size/product segment in Q2 2026 | shallow bay under 50000 sf vacancy percent: 6.2; light industrial 50000 100000 sf vacancy percent: 7.9; bulk over 100000 sf vacancy percent: 12.3; flex vacancy percent: 7.8; flex asking rent usd per sf month nnn: 1.37percent and usd per sf month nnn | Q2 2026 | Las Vegas industrial market | Context only | [12] |
| East and West Henderson industrial vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | east henderson vacancy percent: 11.2; west henderson vacancy percent: 18.8; east henderson asking usd per sf month nnn: 1.02; west henderson asking usd per sf month nnn: 1.02percent and usd per sf month nnn | Q2 2026 | East Henderson and West Henderson industrial submarkets | Context only | [12] |
| Henderson retail asking rent and relative vacancy position in Q2 2026 | asking rent usd per sf month nnn: 2.76; metro asking rent usd per sf month nnn: 2.12; metro vacancy percent: 4.5; henderson vacancy position: below valley averagemixed retail metrics | Q2 2026 | Henderson retail submarket within Southern Nevada | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Las Vegas retail market indicators in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate percent: 4.79; average nnn asking rate usd per sf month: 2.97; under construction sf: 1,662,284mixed retail metrics | Q2 2026 | Las Vegas retail market | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Active Henderson corridor work includes I-215 widening and Stephanie Street reconstruction | i215 scope: add two lanes in each direction between Pecos Road and Stephanie Street with ramp and intersection upgrades; stephanie scope: roadway reconstruction, reclaimed-water pipeline rehabilitation, and sewer improvements between Galleria Drive and Wigwam Parkway; traffic condition note: City project page states traffic often backs up around the Green Valley Parkway crossing areaproject description | Current projects accessed August 2026 | I-215 Pecos Road-Stephanie Street and Stephanie Street Galleria Drive-Wigwam Parkway, Henderson | Conditional relationship | [15] [16] |
| Larger NDOT Henderson Interchange construction is not yet active | status: design underway; anticipated construction start: late 2027 or early 2028project status | Current project status and anticipated construction timeline accessed August 2026 | Henderson Interchange study area | Context only | [17] |
| Applicable Henderson Master Sign Plans control sign sizes, locations, counts, colors, style, letter heights, and lines of copy | regulated elements: size, location, number, font colors, style, minimum letter height, maximum letter height, lines of copyregulated elements | Current sign-plan requirements accessed August 2026 | Henderson non-residential developments with an applicable Master Sign Plan | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Permanent signs must comply with the City sign code and/or applicable Master Sign Plan and use a licensed sign contractor | community development review up to business days: 5; building department review up to business days: 5; licensed sign contractor required: yesbusiness days and requirement | Current sign permitting process accessed August 2026 | Henderson, Nevada | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Master Sign Plan application fee effective August 1, 2025 | 274usd | Revised April 2025; effective August 1, 2025 | Henderson, Nevada | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Development Services Center fee schedule effective October 1, 2025 is subject to annual CPI review | effective date: 2025-10-01; annual cpi review: yespolicy status | Fee schedule effective October 1, 2025; annual CPI review framework | Henderson, Nevada | Context only | [21] |
| 2024 Henderson code amendments apply to submittals received on or after January 2, 2026 | 2026-01-02effective date | 2024 code amendments effective for submittals on or after January 2, 2026 | Henderson, Nevada | Context only | [22] |
| Clark County maps Henderson-area expansive-soil categories but requires site-specific geotechnical evaluation | severity categories: 0%-4% none to low, 4%-8% moderate, 8%-12% high, greater than 12% critical; site specific variation warning: yes; map revision date: 2006-09-05; plot date: 2026-08-02mapped categories and warning | Map plotted August 2, 2026; underlying map revision September 5, 2006 | Las Vegas Valley including Henderson | Context only | [24] |
| Las Vegas Valley cemented soils/caliche are heterogeneous and difficult to quantify using typical site investigation techniques | engineering issue: thickness, strength, and lateral extent are difficult to quantify; heterogeneous conditions can produce inconsistent foundation design and performanceresearch finding | Las Vegas Valley cemented soils/caliche engineering research | Las Vegas Valley | Context only | [25] |
| Henderson publishes an active-business-license dataset that is updated weekly | update frequency: weekly; available fields include: establishment name, establishment address, license typedataset capability | Updated weekly; accessed August 2026 | Henderson, Nevada | Context only | [26] |
| County Business Patterns provides establishment data by industry at county, MSA, and ZIP Code scales | reference year: 2,023; geographies: county, msa, zip code; industry resolution: NAICSdataset capability | Calendar year 2023 | U.S | Context only | [27] |
| City economic-development materials identify four hospitals and multiple higher-education institutions in Henderson | hospitals: 4; named higher education examples: College of Southern Nevada, Nevada State University, Touro University Nevada, Roseman University campusinstitutions | Current city economic-development profile accessed August 2026 | Henderson, Nevada | Context only | [28] |
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, Aire Serv reached 71.47 after target-market demand +0.9 pts, property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Supplied Multi-City Structural Franchise Research Docket (I 132)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Occupied housing concentrated in the 1990-2009 construction era
- 2Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-Killers and Structural ConstraintsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - modInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Demographic Profile
Used for: Current City of Henderson population estimate
- 5QuickFacts: Henderson city, Nevada
Used for: Households and owner-occupied housing share
- 6Housing Counts and Population Estimates - July 1, 2025
Used for: Housing units on July 1, 2025, Housing units on July 1, 2024, Housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025, ZIP 89011 housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025, and ZIP 89014 housing-unit growth from July 1, 2024 to July 1, 2025
- 7NRS 278.237 - Additional Reporting on Housing Progress and Plans
Used for: Households and owner-occupied housing share and Occupied housing concentrated in the 1990-2009 construction era
- 8When is it time to replace?
Used for: ENERGY STAR age threshold to consider replacement of heat pumps or air conditioners
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas - May 2025
Used for: Food preparation and serving employment concentration in the Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas MSA
- 10June 2026 Sub-State Press Release and Report
Used for: Henderson unemployment rate in June 2026
- 11Q2 2026 Industrial Market Report - Las Vegas
Used for: S/SE Henderson industrial market conditions in Q2 2026
- 12Las Vegas Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Las Vegas industrial vacancy by size/product segment in Q2 2026 and East and West Henderson industrial vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026
- 13Las Vegas Retail Market Report - 2026 Q2
Used for: Henderson retail asking rent and relative vacancy position in Q2 2026
- 14Las Vegas, NV Retail Q2 2026
Used for: Las Vegas retail market indicators in Q2 2026
- 15Current Projects
Used for: Active Henderson corridor work includes I-215 widening and Stephanie Street reconstruction
- 16City of Henderson Begins Design Phase To Improve I-215 and I-11 Interchange
Used for: Active Henderson corridor work includes I-215 widening and Stephanie Street reconstruction
- 17Henderson Interchange
Used for: Larger NDOT Henderson Interchange construction is not yet active
- 18Master Signs Plans
Used for: Applicable Henderson Master Sign Plans control sign sizes, locations, counts, colors, style, letter heights, and lines of copy
- 19Permanent Signs
Used for: Permanent signs must comply with the City sign code and/or applicable Master Sign Plan and use a licensed sign contractor
- 20Application Fee Schedule
Used for: Master Sign Plan application fee effective August 1, 2025
- 21Fees Schedules
Used for: Development Services Center fee schedule effective October 1, 2025 is subject to annual CPI review
- 22Building Codes
Used for: 2024 Henderson code amendments apply to submittals received on or after January 2, 2026
- 23
- 24Clark County Expansive Soil Guidelines Map
Used for: Clark County maps Henderson-area expansive-soil categories but requires site-specific geotechnical evaluation
- 25CCEER-19-01: Improving Strain Wedge Model Capabilities in Analyzing Laterally Loaded Drilled Shafts in Cemented Soils
Used for: Las Vegas Valley cemented soils/caliche are heterogeneous and difficult to quantify using typical site investigation techniques
- 26Active Business Licenses
Used for: Henderson publishes an active-business-license dataset that is updated weekly
- 27County Business Patterns: 2023
Used for: County Business Patterns provides establishment data by industry at county, MSA, and ZIP Code scales
- 28Economic Development
Used for: City economic-development materials identify four hospitals and multiple higher-education institutions in Henderson
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.