68.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Las Vegas, Nevada
We ranked 14 franchise concepts for Las Vegas, Nevada using local demand, labor, transportation, real estate, regulation, and source-backed evidence.
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
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
Our Las Vegas, Nevada analysis favored concepts whose operating requirements matched the city’s strongest service-demand conditions without depending too heavily on inexpensive labor, easy routing, or low-cost commercial space. City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the three highest modeled alignment scores in the evaluated set. Target-market demand was the strongest positive factor: it materially affected 11 concepts and added 0.8 points on average among them. Transportation, routing, and parking was the broadest negative pressure, reducing the 14 exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average. The result is not that the highest-ranked brand is universally better. It means that, under the documented city assumptions and the operating profiles available to us, its local advantages outweighed its modeled constraints more effectively. Territory boundaries, candidate capabilities, capital structure, franchise economics, current FDD disclosures, and local franchisee validation remain outside this ranking and can materially change the decision.
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.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility management | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coaching | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjusting | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbing | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
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.
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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | — | -0.6 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #7 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.6 pts | — | -1.3 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #8 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.9 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.0 pts | — |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.6 pts | — | -1.2 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.5 pts | — | -0.9 pts | +0.1 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 | — |
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.
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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.
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 HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
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.
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
Concepts challenged most
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #8 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
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 challenged most
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #6 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts challenged most
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #5 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
- 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
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.
Best 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
Compare all assessed concepts
Explore the complete score calculations
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see how each factor was treated and the single next check most capable of changing the result.
City Wide
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for City Wide to support its local contract pipeline?
ActionCOACH
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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
Most important next check
Which business-owner segments are expected to produce the most repeatable coaching demand for ActionCOACH?
FASTSIGNS
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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–#5
Most important next check
Which local customer verticals are expected to generate repeat signage and graphics work for FASTSIGNS?
HomeSmiles
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.76 |
| 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–#8
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for HomeSmiles to support its local contract pipeline?
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- 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
- #3–#8
Most important next check
Which transaction corridors and referral markets would define Pillar To Post Home Inspectors's practical inspection territory?
Tiger Adjusters
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Tiger Adjusters's practical service territory?
ZOOM DRAIN
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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
Most important next check
Where must ZOOM DRAIN stage crews and vehicles to protect after-hours response times across the proposed territory?
Aire Serv
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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–#11
Most important next check
What daily vehicle utilization and travel-time allowance are built into Aire Serv's operating plan?
Mr. Rooter
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | 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 | 69.90 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- 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
- #6–#10
Most important next check
How many field vehicles must Mr. Rooter deploy, and where would they begin and end each service day?
Mister Sparky Electric
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.79 |
| 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 -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Mister Sparky Electric's practical service territory?
Jan-Pro International
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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
Most important next check
What opening staffing ratio, wage range, and retention plan does Jan-Pro International assume for frontline roles?
PuroClean
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
Most important next check
What dispatch zones and maximum drive-time assumptions does PuroClean use for urgent service calls?
Rainbow International Restoration
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
- #12–#13
Most important next check
What opening staffing ratio, wage range, and retention plan does Rainbow International Restoration assume for frontline roles?
Workout Anytime
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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
Most important next check
What trade-area boundary and population base would Workout Anytime use to evaluate the proposed location?
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Metric registry
The 25 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry exposes the raw value, period, geography, factor mapping, and source for every public metric used in the city research.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | How used | 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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Real estate and site feasibility, Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Target-market demand | [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 | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality, Referral ecosystem | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction, Referral ecosystem | [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 | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [7] |
| Nevada minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 | 12usd per hour | Rate effective July 1, 2026 | Nevada, subject to statutory exemptions | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality, Target-market demand | [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 | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Territory quality, Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Sales and customer acquisition | [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.
Why every concept begins at 70.0
70.0 is a neutral display baseline shared by every concept. Local conditions can move a score by no more than 18.0 points in either direction under the current model. It 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
How factor rows are classified
“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 4, 2026Added conditional scoring gates, factor-status transparency, rank-sensitivity testing, metric registry output, and factor-impact visualization data.
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.
