70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Lexington, Kentucky
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Lexington, Kentucky. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism.
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
27Sources used
14Primary sources
36Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1 point average among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Lexington, Kentucky
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and HomeSmiles produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account 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 | 72.6Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Lexington, Kentucky
Recent population growth and 2025 residential permitting support incremental household-service demand
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Building permits in 2025: 1,052 housing units authorized. [6] [5]
University of Kentucky reported preliminary Fall 2025 enrollment of 38,719 and more than 26,000 employees in 2024
UK's scale establishes a large institutional account base and a concentrated campus population, but the reviewed public evidence does not quantify a citywide academic-break foot-traffic collapse. The defensible model effect is institutional-account demand for concepts that sell to institutions, not a blanket walk-in-demand uplift or penalty for all Lexington retail. [11] [2] [4] [12] [14]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [9] [6] [4] [2] [12] [11] [14] [13]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent population growth and 2025 residential permitting support incremental household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
University of Kentucky creates a large, formal institutional account base in Lexington1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Nicholasville Road/US 27 has documented crash concentration and reversible-lane operating complexity1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
H-1 historic-district properties require exterior-change approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.6
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 pts | |
| Net local movement | +2.65 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.65 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#12
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 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
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 | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 pts | |
| Net local movement | +1.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.66 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.15 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 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 | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.92 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.71 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
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 | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#6
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.62 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.62 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.59 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.59 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.49 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.33 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 | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.33 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.23 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.23 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.65 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.6 |
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #1 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Population Change From April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20252.2 percent
- Households In The 2020 2024 Estimate Period139,715 households
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate53.8 percent
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.2 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.9 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#12
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 HomeSmilesStable · tested #2–#3
#4 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#6
#7 Mr. RooterStable · tested #7–#7
#8 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #8–#8
#9 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#10 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#11 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #11–#11
#12 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #12–#13
#13 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [5] [6] [9] [11] [12] [13] [14] [2] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [17] [2] [24] [25]Competitive environment: [7] [6] [20]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [8] [10] [15] [16] [12] [3] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [22] [6] [4] [2]Real estate and site feasibility: [20] [21] [18] [19] [2] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [7] [6] [14] [2]Referral ecosystem: [6] [11] [12] [13] [14]Territory quality: [22] [23] [18] [19] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [18] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand |
|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.6 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.9 pts |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +1.7 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.2 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.9 pts |
| #6 Aire Serv | +0.7 pts |
| #7 Mr. Rooter | +0.7 pts |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.6 pts |
| #9 ActionCOACH | +0.6 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts |
| #11 Workout Anytime | +0.5 pts |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.3 pts |
| #13 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to property replacement-cycle demand. 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 City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Lexington, Kentucky
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Lexington, Kentucky
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.0 to 70.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.3. Target-market demand added 0.2 points on average among the affected concepts.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.3-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.0–70.3
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.3
PuroClean70.0
Metric registry
The 36 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 | 329,751people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 economic data | Lexington-Fayette urban county, Kentucky | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 2.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 economic data | Lexington-Fayette urban county, Kentucky | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period | 139,715households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 economic data | Lexington-Fayette urban county, Kentucky | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 53.8percent | July 1, 2025 housing-unit estimate; 2025 building permits; 2023 business data | Fayette County, Kentucky | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Building permits in 2025 | 1,052housing units authorized | July 1, 2025 housing-unit estimate; 2025 building permits; 2023 business data | Fayette County, Kentucky | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Employer establishments in 2023 | 9,295establishments | July 1, 2025 housing-unit estimate; 2025 building permits; 2023 business data | Fayette County, Kentucky | Context only | [6] [7] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 7,092,879thousand usd | July 1, 2025 housing-unit estimate; 2025 building permits; 2023 business data | Fayette County, Kentucky | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 7,414,523thousand usd | July 1, 2025 housing-unit estimate; 2025 building permits; 2023 business data | Fayette County, Kentucky | Context only | [6] |
| Total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 306,100jobs | Labor-force and nonfarm-employment data through June 2026, preliminary where marked | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA | Context only | [9] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026 | 41,300jobs | Labor-force and nonfarm-employment data through June 2026, preliminary where marked | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Government employment in June 2026 | 61,000jobs | Labor-force and nonfarm-employment data through June 2026, preliminary where marked | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.8percent not seasonally adjusted | Labor-force and nonfarm-employment data through June 2026, preliminary where marked | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA | Context only | [9] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2025 | lexington msa: 29.91; united states: 33.54usd per hour | May 2025 | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA and United States | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations | 15.82usd per hour | May 2025 | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations | 18.07usd per hour | May 2025 | Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Average weekly wage in fourth quarter 2025 | fayette county: 1,298; united states: 1,569usd per week | Fourth quarter and December 2025, preliminary | Fayette County, Kentucky and United States | Context only | [10] |
| Toyota Kentucky production team member compensation range | starting rate: 24; top out rate: 38.8; grow in years: 4usd per hour and years | Current compensation ranges accessed August 2026 | Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Georgetown, Kentucky | Context only | [15] [3] |
| Toyota Kentucky skilled maintenance compensation range | starting rate: 35.9; top out rate: 47.95; grow in years: 3usd per hour and years | Current compensation ranges accessed August 2026 | Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Georgetown, Kentucky | Context only | [15] |
| Full-time employment at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky | 10,000employees | Current facility facts including 2025 production | Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky, Georgetown, Kentucky | Context only | [16] |
| Preliminary University of Kentucky Fall 2025 enrollment | 38,719students | Preliminary Fall 2025 enrollment | University of Kentucky, Lexington campus | Used in scoring | [11] [2] [4] |
| University of Kentucky total employees reported in June 2024 | 26,000employees more than | Fiscal-year 2024-25 budget context | University of Kentucky enterprise headquartered in Lexington | Used in scoring | [12] |
| UK HealthCare total ambulatory volume in FY2025 | 1,514,595visits or service events reported | Fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 preliminary unaudited results | UK HealthCare enterprise anchored in Lexington | Used in scoring | [13] |
| University of Kentucky publishes active IFB and RFP opportunities with formal solicitation requirements | yesboolean | Active solicitations accessed August 15, 2026 | University of Kentucky Procurement Services, Lexington | Used in scoring | [14] |
| KGS publishes Lexington quadrangle karst groundwater mapping, Fayette County karst resources, and sinkhole-development references | yesboolean | Archived KGS resources created before April 24, 2026 | Lexington/Fayette County and Lexington quadrangle | Context only | [17] [2] |
| New areas were added to Lexington's Urban Service Area in 2024 and the approved growth program retains a process for future boundary changes | urban service area expanded: yes; expansion year: 2,024; lpgmp approval date: 2026-02-12; first program use planned: 2,030policy status | Program approved February 12, 2026; Urban Service Area expansion and master plan from 2024 | Lexington-Fayette Urban County | Conditional relationship | [18] [2] |
| Legacy Business Park construction provides 200 acres with 19 lots totaling 147 development acres | site acres: 200; lots: 19; development acres: 147acres and lots | Construction underway June 2025 | Legacy Business Park, Lexington, Kentucky | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Reported direct industrial vacancy range in Q2 2026 | low: 6.8; high: 8.9percent | Q2 2026 market report and prior 90 days of proprietary tenant-search activity | Lexington commercial real estate market | Context only | [20] |
| Warehouse tenant-search size requirements in TenantBase's Q2 2026 Lexington sample | lower bound average sqft: 2,500; upper bound sqft: 10,000; tracked warehouse searches: 10square feet and searches | Q2 2026 market report and prior 90 days of proprietary tenant-search activity | TenantBase Lexington tenant-search activity | Context only | [20] |
| U.S. industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 | 6.5percent | Q2 2026 | United States | Context only | [21] |
| Reported crashes on the studied US 27/Nicholasville Road corridor, 2018-2022 | total: 5,679; fatal or suspected serious injury: 25; minor or suspected minor injury: 702; property damage only: 4,952; rear end share percent: 42crashes and percent | Study published July 2026; crash history 2018-2022; future improvement packages conceptual/phased | US 27/Nicholasville Road study corridor, Lexington area | Conditional relationship | [22] [4] |
| KYTC identifies reversible lanes, access-point density, and wider intersections as conditions that can differ from driver expectations and raise crash risk | yesboolean | Study published July 2026; crash history 2018-2022; future improvement packages conceptual/phased | US 27/Nicholasville Road study corridor, Lexington area | Conditional relationship | [22] [4] |
| Lexington H-1 Overlay historic districts | 15historic districts | Current permit rules accessed August 2026 | Lexington H-1 Overlay Zone districts | Conditional relationship | [23] [4] |
| Property owners in H-1 districts must obtain approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior building and site changes | yesboolean | Current permit rules accessed August 2026 | Lexington H-1 Overlay Zone districts | Conditional relationship | [23] [4] |
| LFUCG requires food service establishments to install grease interceptors | yesboolean | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Food service establishments subject to LFUCG FOG requirements | Context only | [24] [25] [4] |
| LFUCG sewer-capacity application requires a $450 administrative fee plus a capacity reservation deposit equal to 25% of the estimated tap permit fee before capacity-request approval | administrative fee usd: 450; capacity reservation deposit percent: 25usd and percent | Application revised September 13, 2024; accessed August 2026 | Projects requesting LFUCG sanitary sewer capacity | Context only | [26] [3] |
| LFUCG publishes current 2026-2027 sewer tap-on fee categories for commercial, industrial, warehouse/distribution and other uses | yesboolean | Tap-on fee period July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027 | New or modified LFUCG sanitary sewer connections | Context only | [27] |
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 72.65 after target-market demand +2.6 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 scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Supplied structural franchise operating-fit research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Preliminary University of Kentucky Fall 2025 enrollment, KGS publishes Lexington quadrangle karst groundwater mapping, Fayette County karst resources, and sinkhole-development references, and New areas were added to Lexington's Urban Service Area in 2024 and the approved growth program retains a process for future boundary changes
- 3Forensic Audit of Municipal Deal-Killers and Structural ConstraintsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Toyota Kentucky production team member compensation range and LFUCG sewer-capacity application requires a $450 administrative fee plus a capacity reservation deposit equal to 25% of the estimated tap permit fee before capacity-request approval
- 4Supplied Lexington neighborhood regulatory, demand, and operating-friction notesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Preliminary University of Kentucky Fall 2025 enrollment, Reported crashes on the studied US 27/Nicholasville Road corridor, 2018-2022, KYTC identifies reversible lanes, access-point density, and wider intersections as conditions that can differ from driver expectations and raise crash risk, Lexington H-1 Overlay historic districts, and Property owners in H-1 districts must obtain approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior building and site changes
- 5QuickFacts: Lexington-Fayette urban county, Kentucky
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Households in the 2020-2024 estimate period
- 6QuickFacts: Fayette County, Kentucky
Used for: Owner-occupied housing unit rate, Building permits in 2025, Employer establishments in 2023, Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022, and Total retail sales in 2022
- 7County Business Patterns: 2023
Used for: Employer establishments in 2023
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in Lexington-Fayette, KY — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2025, Mean hourly wage for food preparation and serving related occupations, and Mean hourly wage for building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations
- 9Lexington-Fayette, KY Economy at a Glance
Used for: Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, Education and health services employment in June 2026, Government employment in June 2026, and Unemployment rate in June 2026
- 10County Employment and Wages in Kentucky — Fourth Quarter 2025
Used for: Average weekly wage in fourth quarter 2025
- 11UK enrollment breaks new record, growth is testament to reputation, power of promise to state
Used for: Preliminary University of Kentucky Fall 2025 enrollment
- 12UK investing more in the people who will advance Kentucky
Used for: University of Kentucky total employees reported in June 2024
- 13UK HealthCare Financial and Operational Update
Used for: UK HealthCare total ambulatory volume in FY2025
- 14Bid and Proposal Opportunities
Used for: University of Kentucky publishes active IFB and RFP opportunities with formal solicitation requirements
- 15Toyota Kentucky
Used for: Toyota Kentucky production team member compensation range and Toyota Kentucky skilled maintenance compensation range
- 16Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky
Used for: Full-time employment at Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky
- 17Karst GIS, Map, and Publication Resources
Used for: KGS publishes Lexington quadrangle karst groundwater mapping, Fayette County karst resources, and sinkhole-development references
- 18Lexington's Preservation & Growth Management Program (LPGMP)
Used for: New areas were added to Lexington's Urban Service Area in 2024 and the approved growth program retains a process for future boundary changes
- 19Work to begin on Legacy Business Park
Used for: Legacy Business Park construction provides 200 acres with 19 lots totaling 147 development acres
- 20Lexington Commercial Real Estate Market Report — Q2 2026
Used for: Reported direct industrial vacancy range in Q2 2026 and Warehouse tenant-search size requirements in TenantBase's Q2 2026 Lexington sample
- 21Q2 2026 U.S. Industrial & Logistics Market Report
Used for: U.S. industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026
- 22US 27 Corridor Study Executive Summary
Used for: Reported crashes on the studied US 27/Nicholasville Road corridor, 2018-2022 and KYTC identifies reversible lanes, access-point density, and wider intersections as conditions that can differ from driver expectations and raise crash risk
- 23Local historic district permits
Used for: Lexington H-1 Overlay historic districts and Property owners in H-1 districts must obtain approval through a Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior building and site changes
- 24Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) — business
Used for: LFUCG requires food service establishments to install grease interceptors
- 25Grease interceptor requirements
Used for: LFUCG requires food service establishments to install grease interceptors
- 26Sewer Capacity Application
Used for: LFUCG sewer-capacity application requires a $450 administrative fee plus a capacity reservation deposit equal to 25% of the estimated tap permit fee before capacity-request approval
- 27Sanitary sewer tap-on desk
Used for: LFUCG publishes current 2026-2027 sewer tap-on fee categories for commercial, industrial, warehouse/distribution and other uses
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.