67.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Honolulu, Hawaii
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Honolulu, Hawaii. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition 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
21Sources used
12Primary sources
50Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.2 points average among 11 affected concepts
1.7 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 7 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Honolulu, Hawaii
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.1 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.7 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #13 to #10 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 73.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.7Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 68.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 68.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -2.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 67.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -3.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Honolulu, Hawaii
Large Honolulu County employer and employment base supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Employer establishments in 2023: 20,890 establishments. [4]
Urban Honolulu construction and maintenance wages indicate elevated competition for overlapping skilled-trade labor
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: U.S. mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations in May 2025: 31.42 usd per hour. [6]
Oahu averaged 114,131 visitors per day in June 2026
Large islandwide visitor volume is not evenly accessible local demand. DBEDT counted 32,209 of Oahu's 41,092 visitor accommodation units in the Waikiki/Honolulu area in 2025 (78.4 percent), so visitor-dependent concepts require a site- and territory-specific trade-area test rather than applying the Oahu visitor census uniformly. [13] [14]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large Honolulu County employer and employment base supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Large hospitality/food-service labor pool and elevated local service wages create frontline staffing competition1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Urban Honolulu construction and maintenance wages indicate elevated competition for overlapping skilled-trade labor1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Honolulu retail asking rents are elevated relative to national benchmarks and fixed-location operators face high occupancy costs1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal estate and site feasibility
Large government employment and Honolulu university enrollment create a meaningful institutional account and professional-relationship base3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Honolulu County government employment in June 2026: 94,500 jobs [8]
- Honolulu County professional and business services employment in June 2026: 55,700 jobs [8]
- Combined fall 2025 enrollment at UH Manoa, Honolulu Community College and Kapiolani Community College: 29,736 students [15]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Waikiki Special District design and exterior controls can require site-specific prototype adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.2
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 | +3.3 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.23 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 73.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.7
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 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 | +2.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.67 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| 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 | -0.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| 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 | 72.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.7 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 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 | +2.5 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.90 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.8 |
| 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 | 70.90 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.3 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 | +2.7 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.41 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 |
| 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 | 70.41 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
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 |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| 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 | 69.82 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 pts | |
| Target-market demand | +1.5 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| 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 | 69.77 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market 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 | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.47 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
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 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 | 69.53 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.6 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 |
| -2.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 |
| 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 | 68.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.7 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 |
| -2.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.04 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.7 |
| 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 | 67.96 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.8
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -3.1 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 | -3.1 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.22 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
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -3.1 |
| 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 | 67.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.8 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -3.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.5 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 | -2.5 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.28 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 |
| 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 | 67.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.7 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.32 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| 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 | 67.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.7 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.60 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.9 |
| 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 | 67.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.4 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.9
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.9 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 |
| -1.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.9 |
| 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 | 66.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.9 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 73.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+1.0 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Employer Establishments In 202320,890 establishments
- Employment Reported In 2023 Business Statistics331,937 employees
- Honolulu County Professional And Business Services Employment In June 202655,700 jobs
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.5 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, 5 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #10 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Estimated Housing Units On July 1, 2025378,986 housing units
- Share Of 2024 Honolulu County Housing Units Built Before 198055.2 percent of housing units
- Share Of 2024 Honolulu County Housing Units Built From 1970 Through 197924.3 percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.2 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 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #5 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.7 pts
Average across all concepts-1.7 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Food Preparation And Serving Related Employment In May 202554,350 jobs
- Mean Hourly Wage For Food Preparation And Serving Related Occupations In May 202522.2 usd per hour
- Food Preparation And Serving Related Employment Location Quotient In May 20251.38 location quotient
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-3.1 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.9 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-2.5 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-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Honolulu Retail Average Net Asking Rent In Q1 202636.49 usd per sqft per year
- Honolulu Retail Overall Availability Rate In Q1 20265 percent
- Honolulu Average Market Retail Asking Rent In Colliers Q2 2026 Comparison56.43 usd per sqft per year
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.9 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
-0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. The adjustments changed absolute scores without changing the order.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank0
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.7 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.4 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
- 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 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#6 HomeSmilesStable · tested #5–#6
#7 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#8 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#9 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#11 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#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] [8] [13] [14] [15] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [4] [20] [21] [18] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [8] [3] [10] [9]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [8] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [12] [9] [17] [18] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [8] [3] [14]Referral ecosystem: [8] [15] [4] [3]Territory quality: [13] [14] [16] [4] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [19] [17] [18] [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 | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.3 pts | — | -0.5 pts | — | +0.4 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.5 pts | — | -0.9 pts | -0.8 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +2.7 pts | — | -2.3 pts | — | — |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts | — | — |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +1.5 pts | — | -1.8 pts | — | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.7 pts | — | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -2.6 pts | — | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.4 pts | -2.7 pts | — | — |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.5 pts | -3.1 pts | — | — |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | -2.5 pts | — | — |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | -2.4 pts | — | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | -2.9 pts | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -1.3 pts | -1.9 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS 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 Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Honolulu, Hawaii
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
67.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Honolulu, Hawaii
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.7 to 67.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 67.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 2.5 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 67.7–67.7
- Category average
- 67.7
Rainbow International Restoration67.7
PuroClean67.7
Metric registry
The 50 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Honolulu County resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 988,703people | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.7percent | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated housing units on July 1, 2025 | 378,986housing units | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 59.8percent | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Context only | [4] |
| Building permits reported for 2025 | 1,446permits | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Context only | [4] |
| Employer establishments in 2023 | 20,890establishments | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Employment reported in 2023 business statistics | 331,937employees | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Accommodation and food services sales in 2022 | 6,721,119,000usd | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Context only | [4] |
| Retail sales in 2022 | 20,479,538,000usd | July 1, 2025 population/housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts; 2023 business statistics | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Context only | [4] |
| Share of 2024 Honolulu County housing units built before 1980 | 55.2percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Share of 2024 Honolulu County housing units built from 1970 through 1979 | 24.3percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Food preparation and serving-related employment in May 2025 | 54,350jobs | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving-related occupations in May 2025 | 22.2usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Food preparation and serving-related employment location quotient in May 2025 | 1.38location quotient | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations in May 2025 | 40.71usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| U.S. mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations in May 2025 | 31.42usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance and repair occupations in May 2025 | 34.52usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Urban Honolulu, HI Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| U.S. mean hourly wage for installation, maintenance and repair occupations in May 2025 | 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | United States | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Hawaii statewide minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 16usd per hour | Effective January 1, 2026; scheduled $18 rate effective January 1, 2028 | Hawaii | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Honolulu County not-seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.1percent | June 2026 and year-to-date June 2026 | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Honolulu County construction employment in June 2026 | 30,100jobs | June 2026 and year-to-date June 2026 | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Honolulu County professional and business services employment in June 2026 | 55,700jobs | June 2026 and year-to-date June 2026 | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Honolulu County government employment in June 2026 | 94,500jobs | June 2026 and year-to-date June 2026 | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Honolulu County health care and social assistance employment in June 2026 | 59,000jobs | June 2026 and year-to-date June 2026 | Honolulu County, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Honolulu retail average net asking rent in Q1 2026 | 36.49usd per sqft per year | First quarter 2026 | Honolulu retail market | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Honolulu retail overall availability rate in Q1 2026 | 5percent | First quarter 2026 | Honolulu retail market | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Honolulu average market retail asking rent in Colliers Q2 2026 comparison | 56.43usd per sqft per year | Second quarter 2026 | Honolulu retail market | Used in scoring | [11] |
| U.S. average retail asking rent in Colliers Q2 2026 comparison | 26.02usd per sqft per year | Second quarter 2026 | United States | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Oahu retail vacancy rate at the end of Q1 2026 | 6.01percent | First quarter 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Oahu industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 | 1.43percent | Second quarter 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Context only | [9] |
| Oahu visitor arrivals in June 2026 | 514,992visitors | June 2026 and first half 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Context only | [13] [8] |
| Oahu visitor spending in June 2026 | 934,500,000usd | June 2026 and first half 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Context only | [13] |
| Oahu average daily visitor census in June 2026 | 114,131visitors per day | June 2026 and first half 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Year-over-year change in Oahu average daily visitor census in June 2026 | -6.7percent | June 2026 and first half 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Context only | [13] |
| Oahu visitor accommodation units in 2025 | 41,092visitor units | Calendar year 2025 inventory survey | Oahu, Hawaii | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Waikiki/Honolulu visitor accommodation units in 2025 | 32,209visitor units | Calendar year 2025 inventory survey | Waikiki/Honolulu, Oahu | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Share of Oahu visitor accommodation units located in Waikiki/Honolulu in 2025 | 78.4percent of oahu visitor units | Calendar year 2025 inventory survey | Waikiki/Honolulu relative to Oahu | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| University of Hawaii at Manoa fall 2025 enrollment | 20,404students | Fall 2025 enrollment | University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu | Supports modeled relationship | [15] [3] |
| Combined fall 2025 enrollment at UH Manoa, Honolulu Community College and Kapiolani Community College | 29,736students | Fall 2025 enrollment | Three University of Hawaii campuses in Honolulu | Supports modeled relationship | [15] |
| Greatest travel-time unreliability on the Oahu NHS occurred in weekday AM/PM peaks, especially in the urban core and H-1/H-201 corridors | periods: weekday am peak, weekday pm peak; corridors: urban core, H-1, H-201; noted segments: H-1/H-201 between Halawa Interchange and Middle Street, H-1 between Kapolei and Pearl City in peak AM eastbound directionqualitative location finding | 2023 LOTTR and TTTR performance data analyzed in the 2025 CMP update | Oahu National Highway System | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Oahu CMP reports truck travel-time reliability challenges as more widespread and persistent than general traffic | yesboolean | 2023 LOTTR and TTTR performance data analyzed in the 2025 CMP update | Oahu National Highway System | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Honolulu ENV metered sewer consumption charge effective July 1, 2026 | 11.83usd per 1000 gallons | Fee schedule effective 2026-2031; CIP horizon 2025-2040 | City and County of Honolulu ENV sewer customers | Context only | [17] [2] |
| Scheduled Honolulu ENV metered sewer consumption charge effective July 1, 2031 | 18.11usd per 1000 gallons | Fee schedule effective 2026-2031; CIP horizon 2025-2040 | City and County of Honolulu ENV sewer customers | Context only | [17] [2] |
| Honolulu ENV wastewater capital improvement program cost for 2025-2040 | 10,100,000,000usd | Fee schedule effective 2026-2031; CIP horizon 2025-2040 | City and County of Honolulu wastewater system | Context only | [17] [2] |
| Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant final upgrade phase cost and completion target | cost usd: 1,800,000,000; target completion year: 2,035project cost and year | Fee schedule effective 2026-2031; CIP horizon 2025-2040 | Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant, Honolulu | Context only | [17] [2] |
| Updated Oahu FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps became effective with regulatory and flood-insurance requirements on June 10, 2026 | 2026-06-10date | Updated Oahu FIRMs effective June 10, 2026 | Oahu, Hawaii | Context only | [18] [2] |
| Properties in Oahu Special Flood Hazard Areas may face additional permit review and must comply with Honolulu Chapter 21A; site-specific lender insurance requirements may also apply | zones: A, AE, AEF, AH, AO, V, VE; permit effect: Some projects may lose Quick Permit eligibility and require Building Permit review; local code: ROH Chapter 21Aconditional regulatory requirement | Updated Oahu FIRMs effective June 10, 2026 | Oahu Special Flood Hazard Areas | Context only | [18] |
| Waikiki Special District development is subject to district-specific use, development, project-classification and urban-design controls; major and minor special-district projects require permits | district: Waikiki Special District; project classes: major, minor, exempt; design controls: yesregulatory structure | Land Use Ordinance revised April 2026 | Waikiki Special District, Honolulu | Conditional relationship | [19] [2] [3] |
| Waikiki Special District standards govern exterior elements including signs, menu displays, awnings and building facades when nonconforming elements are renovated, reconfigured or replaced | yesboolean | Land Use Ordinance revised April 2026 | Waikiki Special District, Honolulu | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Research identifies shallower, saltier coastal groundwater as a corrosion and failure mechanism for buried infrastructure; Waikiki is a local observation context | affected system examples: sewer lines, roadways, building foundations; mechanism: shallower and saltier coastal groundwater interacting with buried infrastructureresearch finding | Research synthesis current through 2024 | Low-lying coastal Honolulu including Waikiki context | Context only | [20] [21] [1] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 73.23 after target-market demand +3.3 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts, and referral ecosystem +0.4 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Supplied multi-city structural and asymmetric franchise operating-condition research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Research identifies shallower, saltier coastal groundwater as a corrosion and failure mechanism for buried infrastructure; Waikiki is a local observation context
- 2Jurisdictional Risk and Structural Friction Analysis: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-KillersInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Honolulu ENV metered sewer consumption charge effective July 1, 2026, Scheduled Honolulu ENV metered sewer consumption charge effective July 1, 2031, Honolulu ENV wastewater capital improvement program cost for 2025-2040, Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant final upgrade phase cost and completion target, and Updated Oahu FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps became effective with regulatory and flood-insurance requirements on June 10, 2026
- 3Franchise data - remake - mod(1).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: University of Hawaii at Manoa fall 2025 enrollment and Waikiki Special District development is subject to district-specific use, development, project-classification and urban-design controls; major and minor special-district projects require permits
- 4QuickFacts: Honolulu County, Hawaii
Used for: Honolulu County resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated housing units on July 1, 2025, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, and Building permits reported for 2025
- 52024 ACS 1-Year County Data Profiles: DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics
Used for: Share of 2024 Honolulu County housing units built before 1980 and Share of 2024 Honolulu County housing units built from 1970 through 1979
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Urban Honolulu — May 2025
Used for: Food preparation and serving-related employment in May 2025, Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving-related occupations in May 2025, Food preparation and serving-related employment location quotient in May 2025, Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations in May 2025, and U.S. mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations in May 2025
- 7Hawaiʻi’s Minimum Wage Increases To $16.00 On January 1
Used for: Hawaii statewide minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 8Monthly Economic Indicators: State and Counties — June 2026
Used for: Honolulu County not-seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in June 2026, Honolulu County construction employment in June 2026, Honolulu County professional and business services employment in June 2026, Honolulu County government employment in June 2026, and Honolulu County health care and social assistance employment in June 2026
- 9Oahu Industrial Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Oahu industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026
- 10Hawaii Retail Figures Q1 2026
Used for: Honolulu retail average net asking rent in Q1 2026 and Honolulu retail overall availability rate in Q1 2026
- 11U.S. Retail Market Statistics Q2 2026
Used for: Honolulu average market retail asking rent in Colliers Q2 2026 comparison and U.S. average retail asking rent in Colliers Q2 2026 comparison
- 12Oahu Retail Market Report Q1 2026
Used for: Oahu retail vacancy rate at the end of Q1 2026
- 13June 2026 Visitor Spending and Arrivals Rose Slightly
Used for: Oahu visitor arrivals in June 2026, Oahu visitor spending in June 2026, Oahu average daily visitor census in June 2026, and Year-over-year change in Oahu average daily visitor census in June 2026
- 142025 Visitor Plant Inventory Report
Used for: Oahu visitor accommodation units in 2025, Waikiki/Honolulu visitor accommodation units in 2025, and Share of Oahu visitor accommodation units located in Waikiki/Honolulu in 2025
- 15UH enrollment tops 51,000, highest in eight years
Used for: University of Hawaii at Manoa fall 2025 enrollment and Combined fall 2025 enrollment at UH Manoa, Honolulu Community College and Kapiolani Community College
- 16Congestion Management Process 2025 Update
Used for: Greatest travel-time unreliability on the Oahu NHS occurred in weekday AM/PM peaks, especially in the urban core and H-1/H-201 corridors and Oahu CMP reports truck travel-time reliability challenges as more widespread and persistent than general traffic
- 17Sewer Fee Rates
Used for: Honolulu ENV metered sewer consumption charge effective July 1, 2026, Scheduled Honolulu ENV metered sewer consumption charge effective July 1, 2031, Honolulu ENV wastewater capital improvement program cost for 2025-2040, and Sand Island Wastewater Treatment Plant final upgrade phase cost and completion target
- 18FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps Information
Used for: Updated Oahu FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps became effective with regulatory and flood-insurance requirements on June 10, 2026 and Properties in Oahu Special Flood Hazard Areas may face additional permit review and must comply with Honolulu Chapter 21A; site-specific lender insurance requirements may also apply
- 19Land Use Ordinance (LUO), Revised April 2026
Used for: Waikiki Special District development is subject to district-specific use, development, project-classification and urban-design controls; major and minor special-district projects require permits and Waikiki Special District standards govern exterior elements including signs, menu displays, awnings and building facades when nonconforming elements are renovated, reconfigured or replaced
- 20Rising seas to eat away at underground infrastructure in Hawaiʻi, globally
Used for: Research identifies shallower, saltier coastal groundwater as a corrosion and failure mechanism for buried infrastructure; Waikiki is a local observation context
- 21Comparison of a simple hydrostatic and a data-intensive 3D numerical modeling method of simulating sea-level rise induced groundwater inundation for Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, USA
Used for: Research identifies shallower, saltier coastal groundwater as a corrosion and failure mechanism for buried infrastructure; Waikiki is a local observation context
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.