68.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Las Vegas, Nevada
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Las Vegas, Nevada. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
25Sources used
17Primary sources
25Local 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 11 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Las Vegas, Nevada
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 point on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported event-driven demand upside while also creating event-demand volatility. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 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 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Las Vegas, Nevada
Large resident, visitor, service-sector, healthcare, and retail activity supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Selected city economic activity in 2022: accommodation and food services sales usd: 5,156,754,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 7,236,569,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 681,420,000; retail sales usd: 17,804,523,000 usd 2022. [5]
Visitor and convention activity creates high event-linked demand with meaningful temporal and geographic concentration
The same local condition created complementary effects: event-driven demand upside supported exposed concepts while event-demand volatility constrained others. [14] [9]
Peak-period congestion reduces route predictability for high-stop and time-sensitive operations
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Las Vegas area visitor, convention, lodging, and spending scale: visitors: 38,500,000; convention attendance: 6,000,000; airport passenger movements: 55,000,000; hotel rooms: 150,300; occupancy rate percent: 80.3; occupied room nights: 44,000,000; direct visitor spending usd: 50,800,000,000; total economic impact usd: 80,900,000,000 people rooms percent nights and usd. [9] [12]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, visitor, service-sector, healthcare, and retail activity supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Visitor and convention activity creates high event-linked demand with meaningful temporal and geographic concentration2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Las Vegas area visitor, convention, lodging, and spending scale: visitors: 38,500,000; convention attendance: 6,000,000; airport passenger movements: 55,000,000; hotel rooms: 150,300; occupancy rate percent: 80.3; occupied room nights: 44,000,000; direct visitor spending usd: 50,800,000,000; total economic impact usd: 80,900,000,000 people rooms percent nights and usd [9]
- Las Vegas retail vacancy and market segmentation: vacancy rate percent: 5; vacancy below six percent since: 2,021; market segmentation: Distinct leasing patterns near the Strip and in the greater metropolitan area percent and directional market condition [14]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Hospitality-heavy occupational concentration creates targeted competition for food-service, cleaning, and other frontline workers1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Peak-period congestion reduces route predictability for high-stop and time-sensitive operations1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
UNLV, the Las Vegas Medical District, and public procurement systems create institutional account and referral pathways3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 4 sources
- University Medical Center serves as the anchor hospital of the Las Vegas Medical District: academic medical center: yes; anchor hospital: yes; service area for trauma center square miles: 10,000; annual trauma patients more than: 12,000 institutional role and scale [22]
- UNLV fall 2025 enrollment: students more than: 33,700; year over year change percent: 2.4 students and percent [21]
- City and county procurement channels include recurring facility, maintenance, staffing, and construction opportunities: city procurement categories: goods, services, construction, professional services; county current examples: boiler preventive maintenance and repairs, janitorial services, temporary staffing, roof replacement, streetlight upgrades procurement categories and examples [23] [24]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 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 |
| +2.0 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.6 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 |
| +1.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.71 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 | +1.8 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.7 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.76 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.3 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.0 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.0 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.15 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.85 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.74 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.33 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.67 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.9 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 |
| -1.9 pts |
| Target-market demand | +1.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.47 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
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.53 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.0 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.26 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 | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.28 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
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 |
| Target-market demand | -0.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.93 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 68.07 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.1 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 72.25 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
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, 9 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025679,817 people
- Households And Owner Occupied Housing Sharehouseholds: 247,741; owner occupied housing share percent: 56.6 households and percent
- Selected City Economic Activity In 2022accommodation and food services sales usd: 5,156,754,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 7,236,569,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 681,420,000; retail sales usd: 17,804,523,000 usd 2022
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-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, 9 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #6 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Occupied Housing Stock By Broad Construction Periodoccupied units total: 240,462; built 2010 or later percent: 8.8; built 1990 to 2009 percent: 51.7; built 1980 or earlier percent: 39.5; built 1990 to 1999 units: 72,860; built 2000 to 2009 units: 51,459 housing units and percent
- Median Year Built For Owner And Renter Occupied Housingowner occupied median year built: 1,995; renter occupied median year built: 1,992
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.9 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 9 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #11 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted9 of 14
Average among affected-0.7 pts
Average across all concepts-0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Preliminary Employment In Selected Metropolitan Industry Supersectorsleisure and hospitality jobs: 305,100; trade transportation and utilities jobs: 209,300; professional and business services jobs: 182,200; education and health services jobs: 140,200; construction jobs: 81,700
- Selected Metropolitan Occupational Shares And Mean Hourly Wagesall occupations mean hourly wage usd: 29.23; united states all occupations mean hourly wage usd: 33.54; food preparation share percent: 14.7; food preparation mean hourly wage usd: 18.41; building grounds share percent: 5.3; building grounds mean hourly wage usd: 20.82; office administrative share percent: 12.1; office administrative mean hourly wage usd: 23.21; additional values omitted percent and usd per hour
- Nevada Minimum Wage Effective July 1, 202612 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.1 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #9 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Las Vegas Area Visitor, Convention, Lodging, And Spending Scalevisitors: 38,500,000; convention attendance: 6,000,000; airport passenger movements: 55,000,000; hotel rooms: 150,300; occupancy rate percent: 80.3; occupied room nights: 44,000,000; direct visitor spending usd: 50,800,000,000; total economic impact usd: 80,900,000,000 people rooms percent nights and usd
- Las Vegas Traffic Congestion And Rush Hour Travel Conditionsaverage congestion level percent: 34.1; change from 2024 percentage points: 6.6; average 10km travel time: 14 minutes 7 seconds; morning 10km travel time: 13 minutes 29 seconds; evening 10km travel time: 18 minutes 11 seconds; evening congestion level percent: 64.7; rush hour time lost hours: 43; additional time lost vs 2024: 3 hours 50 minutes percent time and hours
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.0 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.0 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #5 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+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank6
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- 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 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #2–#3
#4 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#5 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#8 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#9 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#11 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#12 PuroCleanStable · tested #12–#13
#13 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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: [5] [6] [9] [8] [14] [21] [22] [23] [24] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [10] [11] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [9] [14] [13] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [8] [25] [6] [21] [22] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [5] [9] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [14] [13] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [2] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [23] [24] [21] [22] [5] [9]Referral ecosystem: [21] [22] [23] [24] [5]Territory quality: [15] [17] [13] [14] [9] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.0 pts | — | -0.4 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.6 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.8 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #5 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.6 pts | — | -1.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #6 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.9 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.0 pts | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | — | -0.6 pts | — |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | — | -1.2 pts | — |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.5 pts | — | -0.9 pts | — |
| #11 Jan-Pro International | +1.7 pts | — | -1.9 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.9 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -1.1 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.8 pts | — | -1.0 pts | -0.1 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 transportation, routing, and parking. 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 ZOOM DRAIN, Aire Serv, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Las Vegas, Nevada
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
68.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Las Vegas, Nevada
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.7 to 68.7. PuroClean ranked highest at 68.7. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.7–68.7
- Category average
- 68.7
PuroClean68.7
Rainbow International Restoration68.7
Metric registry
The 25 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 679,817people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic measures | Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 5.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic measures | Las Vegas, Nevada | Context only | [5] |
| Households and owner-occupied housing share | households: 247,741; owner occupied housing share percent: 56.6households and percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic measures | Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Selected city economic activity in 2022 | accommodation and food services sales usd: 5,156,754,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 7,236,569,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 681,420,000; retail sales usd: 17,804,523,000usd 2022 | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic measures | Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Median housing-cost and household-income measures | median owner occupied home value usd: 427,900; median monthly owner cost with mortgage usd: 1,933; median monthly gross rent usd: 1,563; median household income usd: 73,877; poverty rate percent: 14mixed housing and income metrics | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic measures | Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Share of owner and renter households classified as cost burdened | owner households percent: 31.5; renter households percent: 56.4percent of households by tenure | Primarily ACS 2022 five-year estimates, 2023 population, and 2024 housing-market values | City of Las Vegas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Occupied housing stock by broad construction period | occupied units total: 240,462; built 2010 or later percent: 8.8; built 1990 to 2009 percent: 51.7; built 1980 or earlier percent: 39.5; built 1990 to 1999 units: 72,860; built 2000 to 2009 units: 51,459housing units and percent | Primarily ACS 2022 five-year estimates, 2023 population, and 2024 housing-market values | City of Las Vegas occupied housing stock | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Median year built for owner- and renter-occupied housing | owner occupied median year built: 1,995; renter occupied median year built: 1,992year | Primarily ACS 2022 five-year estimates, 2023 population, and 2024 housing-market values | City of Las Vegas | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Las Vegas area visitor, convention, lodging, and spending scale | visitors: 38,500,000; convention attendance: 6,000,000; airport passenger movements: 55,000,000; hotel rooms: 150,300; occupancy rate percent: 80.3; occupied room nights: 44,000,000; direct visitor spending usd: 50,800,000,000; total economic impact usd: 80,900,000,000people rooms percent nights and usd | Calendar year 2025 tourism totals and annual averages; page current July 2026 | Las Vegas area and Southern Nevada visitor economy | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Preliminary metropolitan labor-force and employment measures | civilian labor force: 1,231,700; employment: 1,167,600; unemployment: 64,100; unemployment rate percent: 5.2; nonfarm jobs: 1,176,800; nonfarm jobs year over year change percent: 2.9people jobs and percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm payroll employment | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas metropolitan statistical area | Context only | [8] |
| Preliminary employment in selected metropolitan industry supersectors | leisure and hospitality jobs: 305,100; trade transportation and utilities jobs: 209,300; professional and business services jobs: 182,200; education and health services jobs: 140,200; construction jobs: 81,700jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and nonfarm payroll employment | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Selected metropolitan occupational shares and mean hourly wages | all occupations mean hourly wage usd: 29.23; united states all occupations mean hourly wage usd: 33.54; food preparation share percent: 14.7; food preparation mean hourly wage usd: 18.41; building grounds share percent: 5.3; building grounds mean hourly wage usd: 20.82; office administrative share percent: 12.1; office administrative mean hourly wage usd: 23.21; additional values omittedpercent and usd per hour | May 2025; reissued June 24, 2026 for sample-size and response-rate corrections | Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Nevada minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 | 12usd per hour | Rate effective July 1, 2026 | Nevada, subject to statutory exemptions | Used in scoring | [25] |
| Las Vegas traffic congestion and rush-hour travel conditions | average congestion level percent: 34.1; change from 2024 percentage points: 6.6; average 10km travel time: 14 minutes 7 seconds; morning 10km travel time: 13 minutes 29 seconds; evening 10km travel time: 18 minutes 11 seconds; evening congestion level percent: 64.7; rush hour time lost hours: 43; additional time lost vs 2024: 3 hours 50 minutespercent time and hours | Calendar year 2025 | Las Vegas, Nevada | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Las Vegas industrial-market vacancy, absorption, and submarket distribution | net absorption sqft: 825,000; vacancy rate percent approximate: 9; new deliveries sqft approximate: 1,300,000; under construction sqft approximate: 5,900,000; north las vegas share of absorption approximate: nearly three-fourths; tighter submarkets: Airport, Southwest; higher vacancy concentrations: Apex, North Las Vegassquare feet percent and directional market condition | Second quarter 2026 | Las Vegas industrial market | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Las Vegas retail vacancy and market segmentation | vacancy rate percent: 5; vacancy below six percent since: 2,021; market segmentation: Distinct leasing patterns near the Strip and in the greater metropolitan areapercent and directional market condition | Second quarter 2026 | Las Vegas retail market | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Southern Nevada Water Authority water-hardness classification | hardness parts per million: 280; hardness grains per gallon: 16; classification: very hardppm grains per gallon and classification | Current water-quality guidance accessed August 2026 | Las Vegas Valley and Southern Nevada Water Authority service region | Context only | [10] [2] |
| Las Vegas Valley water source and mineral-hardness explanation | lake mead share approximate percent: 90; hardness minerals: calcium, magnesium; health risk statement: The cited minerals do not pose a drinking-water health risk.percent and source description | Current 2026 report using 2025 monitoring activity | Las Vegas Valley Water District service area | Context only | [11] |
| A large portion of the Las Vegas Valley lies outside the City of Las Vegas planning jurisdiction | city apn check required: yes; unincorporated county code: Clark County Title 30; county town advisory areas in supplied rows: Spring Valley, Enterprise, Paradisejurisdiction conditions | Current application and jurisdiction guidance accessed August 2026 | Las Vegas Valley | Conditional relationship | [15] [17] [4] |
| City and county sign approvals use separate code and application systems | city applications include: temporary sign permit, wall sign application; city code chapter: Las Vegas Municipal Code Title 19.14 Sign Standards; county code chapter: Clark County Title 30 Chapter 30.05 Signs; county design review materials include: application, ownership documents, site plan, elevations, justification, feesregulatory requirements | Current application and jurisdiction guidance accessed August 2026 | City of Las Vegas and unincorporated Clark County | Conditional relationship | [15] [16] [17] [18] [4] |
| Clark County drainage-study requirement is triggered by site-specific flood and drainage conditions | triggers: FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area impact, adjacency to or impact from a master-plan facility, wash or facility flows; determination inputs: proposed development, development size, site locationapplicability conditions | Current drainage-review guidance accessed August 2026 | Clark County development sites | Context only | [19] [3] |
| Affordable-housing development incentives are optional and carry a long-term affordability covenant | incentives adopted since: 2,023; incentive types: fee reduction, density bonus, height bonus; minimum covenant years: 30; applicability: Developments electing to use the specified affordable-housing incentivespolicy conditions and years | Affordable-housing incentive implementation since 2023 and draft status through October 2024 | City of Las Vegas affordable-housing incentive program | Context only | [20] [3] |
| UNLV fall 2025 enrollment | students more than: 33,700; year over year change percent: 2.4students and percent | Fall 2025 enrollment | University of Nevada, Las Vegas | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| University Medical Center serves as the anchor hospital of the Las Vegas Medical District | academic medical center: yes; anchor hospital: yes; service area for trauma center square miles: 10,000; annual trauma patients more than: 12,000institutional role and scale | Current institutional profile accessed August 2026 | University Medical Center and Las Vegas Medical District | Supports modeled relationship | [22] |
| City and county procurement channels include recurring facility, maintenance, staffing, and construction opportunities | city procurement categories: goods, services, construction, professional services; county current examples: boiler preventive maintenance and repairs, janitorial services, temporary staffing, roof replacement, streetlight upgradesprocurement categories and examples | Current procurement scope accessed August 2026 | City of Las Vegas and Clark County | Supports modeled relationship | [23] [24] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 72.25 after target-market demand +2.0 pts, referral ecosystem +0.7 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2The Utility Delta: A Structural Audit of Ten U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Southern Nevada Water Authority water-hardness classification
- 3Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Municipal AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Clark County drainage-study requirement is triggered by site-specific flood and drainage conditions and Affordable-housing development incentives are optional and carry a long-term affordability covenant
- 4Franchise data - Riverside through CharlotteInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: A large portion of the Las Vegas Valley lies outside the City of Las Vegas planning jurisdiction and City and county sign approvals use separate code and application systems
- 5QuickFacts: Las Vegas city, Nevada
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households and owner-occupied housing share, Selected city economic activity in 2022, and Median housing-cost and household-income measures
- 6NRS 278.237 — City of Las Vegas Housing Report 2024
Used for: Share of owner and renter households classified as cost burdened, Occupied housing stock by broad construction period, and Median year built for owner- and renter-occupied housing
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas — May 2025
Used for: Selected metropolitan occupational shares and mean hourly wages
- 8Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV Economy at a Glance
Used for: Preliminary metropolitan labor-force and employment measures and Preliminary employment in selected metropolitan industry supersectors
- 9Las Vegas Statistics, Research, and Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: Las Vegas area visitor, convention, lodging, and spending scale
- 10Home treatment systems — How hard is our water?
Used for: Southern Nevada Water Authority water-hardness classification
- 11Las Vegas Valley Water District Water Quality Report
Used for: Las Vegas Valley water source and mineral-hardness explanation
- 12Las Vegas, NV Traffic Report
Used for: Las Vegas traffic congestion and rush-hour travel conditions
- 13Las Vegas Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Las Vegas industrial-market vacancy, absorption, and submarket distribution
- 14Las Vegas Retail Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Las Vegas retail vacancy and market segmentation
- 15CLV EPLAN
Used for: A large portion of the Las Vegas Valley lies outside the City of Las Vegas planning jurisdiction and City and county sign approvals use separate code and application systems
- 16City of Las Vegas Zoning Code
Used for: City and county sign approvals use separate code and application systems
- 17Title 30: Unified Development Code
Used for: A large portion of the Las Vegas Valley lies outside the City of Las Vegas planning jurisdiction and City and county sign approvals use separate code and application systems
- 18Sign Design Review Submittal Requirements
Used for: City and county sign approvals use separate code and application systems
- 19Drainage Study — Drainage Review and Submittal
Used for: Clark County drainage-study requirement is triggered by site-specific flood and drainage conditions
- 20Pathways to Removing Obstacles to Housing (PRO Housing) Application Draft
Used for: Affordable-housing development incentives are optional and carry a long-term affordability covenant
- 21UNLV’s Growth Surge Continues with Fall Enrollment Milestone
Used for: UNLV fall 2025 enrollment
- 22About Us — University Medical Center of Southern Nevada
Used for: University Medical Center serves as the anchor hospital of the Las Vegas Medical District
- 23City of Las Vegas Purchasing and Contracts
Used for: City and county procurement channels include recurring facility, maintenance, staffing, and construction opportunities
- 24Clark County Current Opportunities
Used for: City and county procurement channels include recurring facility, maintenance, staffing, and construction opportunities
- 25State of Nevada Minimum Wage 2026 Annual Bulletin
Used for: Nevada minimum wage effective July 1, 2026
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.