67.9 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Lincoln, Nebraska
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Lincoln, Nebraska. Household service demand was a leading positive mechanism. Service-base space scarcity was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
23Sources used
15Primary sources
34Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.8 points average among 13 affected concepts
1.2 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Lincoln, Nebraska
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, City Wide, 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 0.9 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.2 points on average. Jan-Pro International was especially relationship-sensitive: removing broad labor scarcity moved it from #11 to #3 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 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.0 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Lincoln, Nebraska
Recent dwelling-unit permitting materially exceeds the long-run PlanForward annual assumption
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households in 2020-2024 Census estimates: 122,623 households. [4] [5]
Exceptionally low industrial vacancy and strongest demand for smaller bays constrain service-base choice
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Average industrial asking rent in the first half of 2026: 8.73 usd per sqft nnn. [13]
property-restoration
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 real estate and site feasibility. [6] [7] [19] [13] [1] [8]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Recent dwelling-unit permitting materially exceeds the long-run PlanForward annual assumption1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
State-government and university scale creates a material institutional account base1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Very low metropolitan unemployment reduces broad hiring slack for labor-intensive operators1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Exceptionally low industrial vacancy and strongest demand for smaller bays constrain service-base choice1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Active 2026-2027 bridge and arterial construction creates corridor-specific route disruption1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Large public-institution buyers use formal purchasing workflows that can add acquisition-process friction1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.3 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 |
| +1.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.31 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.86 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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.86 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.7 |
| 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 | 70.26 |
| 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
- 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 +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.25 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.25 |
| 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
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.24 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.6 |
| 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 | 70.24 |
| 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
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.22 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.22 |
| 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
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.0 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.0 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.0 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.93 |
| 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
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.46 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.54 |
| 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 -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.62 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption 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.
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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.9 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.65 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
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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
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
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.5 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.07 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.5 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.93 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
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
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -2.11 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.89 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.9 |
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
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.4 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -2.15 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
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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.9 |
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
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.31 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
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, 7 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #6 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Households In 2020 2024 Census Estimates122,623 households
- Dwelling Units Permitted In 20252,029 dwelling units permitted
- Average Annual Permitted Dwelling Units, 2023 20251,985 dwelling units per year
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+1.3 pts
City WideFacility management
+1.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.0 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #11 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Unemployment Rate In June 20262.9 percent
- Total Nonfarm Employment In June 2026199,400 jobs
- Mean Hourly Wage Across All Occupations In May 202530.28 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.6 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.2 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
-0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #7 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-1.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Industrial Vacancy Rate In The First Half Of 20261.9 percent
- Average Industrial Asking Rent In The First Half Of 20268.73 usd per sqft nnn
- Small Industrial Bays Were Reported As The Strongest Demand Segment And Generally Leasing Faster Than Larger Buildingssmall bay demand strongest categorical
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.5 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Property replacement-cycle demandNo material score adjustment
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsStable · tested #1–#1
#2 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#3 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#4 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#5 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#7 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#8 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#9 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#11 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#12 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #13–#14
#14 PuroCleanStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [8] [14] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [22] [23] [5] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [14] [13] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [2] [8]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [17] [18] [5] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [14] [15] [9] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [19] [20] [21] [6] [8] [3]Referral ecosystem: [6] [8] [19] [21] [1]Territory quality: [5] [14] [15] [13] [16] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [9] [10] [11] [12] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Real estate and site feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.3 pts | — | — |
| #2 City Wide | +1.3 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +1.5 pts | -0.5 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #5 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.9 pts | — | -0.6 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #7 Mr. Rooter | +0.9 pts | — | -1.0 pts |
| #8 Workout Anytime | +0.7 pts | -1.2 pts | — |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.8 pts | — | -1.4 pts |
| #10 Aire Serv | +1.0 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.4 pts |
| #11 Jan-Pro International | +0.9 pts | -1.6 pts | — |
| #12 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.5 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | -0.9 pts | -1.4 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | -0.7 pts | -1.4 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, City Wide, HomeSmiles led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to real estate and site feasibility. 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, ActionCOACH, Mister Sparky Electric; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Lincoln, Nebraska
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
67.9Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Lincoln, Nebraska
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.9 to 67.9. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 67.9. Target-market demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 1.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 67.9–67.9
- Category average
- 67.9
Rainbow International Restoration67.9
PuroClean67.9
Metric registry
The 34 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 | 301,522people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Lincoln, Nebraska | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Lincoln, Nebraska | Context only | [4] |
| Households in 2020-2024 Census estimates | 122,623households | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Lincoln, Nebraska | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate | 56.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS characteristics | Lincoln, Nebraska | Context only | [4] |
| Dwelling units permitted in 2025 | 2,029dwelling units permitted | Building permits through calendar year 2025; supply as of January 1, 2026 | Lincoln and three-mile jurisdiction | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Average annual permitted dwelling units, 2023-2025 | 1,985dwelling units per year | Building permits through calendar year 2025; supply as of January 1, 2026 | Lincoln and three-mile jurisdiction | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total permitted dwelling units, 2023-2025 | 5,954dwelling units permitted | Building permits through calendar year 2025; supply as of January 1, 2026 | Lincoln and three-mile jurisdiction | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Multi-family share of new dwelling-unit permits, 2023-2025 | 58.3percent | Building permits through calendar year 2025; supply as of January 1, 2026 | Lincoln and three-mile jurisdiction | Context only | [5] |
| Share of projected 2020-2050 dwelling-unit growth expected primarily in new growth areas on city edges | 75percent of projected new units | Building permits through calendar year 2025; supply as of January 1, 2026 | Lincoln 2050 growth geography | Conditional relationship | [5] |
| Unemployment rate in June 2026 | 2.9percent | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Lincoln, Nebraska metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 199,400jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Lincoln, Nebraska metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Government employment in June 2026 | 41,600jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Lincoln, Nebraska metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Government share of June 2026 nonfarm employment | 20.9percent of nonfarm jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor-force and payroll data | Lincoln, Nebraska metropolitan area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| University of Nebraska-Lincoln total enrollment in Fall 2025 | 23,954students | Fall 2025 | University of Nebraska-Lincoln | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2025 | 30.28usd per hour | May 2025 | Lincoln MSA including Lancaster and Seward Counties | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Mean hourly wage for office and administrative support occupations in May 2025 | 22.9usd per hour | May 2025 | Lincoln MSA including Lancaster and Seward Counties | Context only | [7] |
| National mean hourly wage for office and administrative support occupations in May 2025 | 24.79usd per hour | May 2025 | United States | Context only | [7] |
| Industrial vacancy rate in the first half of 2026 | 1.9percent | First half of 2026 | Lincoln industrial market | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Average industrial asking rent in the first half of 2026 | 8.73usd per sqft nnn | First half of 2026 | Lincoln industrial market | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Small industrial bays were reported as the strongest-demand segment and generally leasing faster than larger buildings | small bay demand strongestcategorical | First half of 2026 | Lincoln industrial market | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Retail vacancy rate in the first half of 2026 | 4.1percent | First half of 2026 | Lincoln retail market | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Average retail asking rent in the first half of 2026 | 14.64usd per sqft nnn | First half of 2026 | Lincoln retail market | Context only | [14] |
| Office vacancy rate in the first half of 2026 | 7.2percent | First half of 2026 | Lincoln office market | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Retail asking rates were reported to vary widely by location, property condition, and specialized features | material location and property variationcategorical | First half of 2026 | Lincoln retail market | Conditional relationship | [14] |
| Arterial street impact fee for general retail/shopping centers under 100,000 square feet | 4.09usd per sqft | Schedule effective January 1, 2025 and current on access date | Lincoln impact-fee jurisdiction | Context only | [9] [10] |
| Impact fees are triggered by new construction, changes in land use, or increases in water meter size, with net-increase rules for changes | new construction, change in land use, increase in water meter sizetrigger conditions | Current program rules accessed August 2026 | Lincoln impact-fee jurisdiction | Context only | [10] |
| Commercial sign installation and re-facing generally require permit review against zoning and sign-code requirements, with plans or elevations required by sign type | permit and site specific code review requiredcategorical | Current sign-permit process accessed August 2026 | Lincoln, Nebraska | Conditional relationship | [11] [12] |
| Multiple major street segments had active full or lane closures during the week of August 10, 2026 | multiple active corridor closurescategorical | Week of August 10, 2026 | Lincoln street network | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Capital City Connector Lincoln Interstate Bridges construction schedule | construction start: spring 2026; anticipated completion: 2027project schedule | Construction scheduled spring 2026 through 2027 | I-80/I-180, Adams Street, and US-6 bridge corridors | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Lincoln South Beltway major mainline construction status | opened to all traffic: December 2022; final construction anticipated: fall 2024project status | Project status current on access date | Lincoln South Beltway | Context only | [18] |
| City and County purchasing is centrally administered and uses an electronic bidding system for vendor solicitations | centralized electronic procurementcategorical | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Lincoln and Lancaster County purchasing | Used in scoring | [19] [20] |
| UNL purchasing-card transactions use documentation, reconciliation, financial approval, and SAP posting workflow | multi step approval workflowcategorical | Current workflow including August 3, 2026 PCard approval update | University of Nebraska-Lincoln | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Lancaster County soils range from clayey to loamy; soils south of Lincoln were documented as having slower infiltration and higher runoff potential than soils north of Lincoln | spatially variable clayey soils and infiltrationcategorical | Physical soil and drainage conditions documented in the comprehensive-plan environmental inventory | Lancaster County with north/south Lincoln-area variation | Conditional relationship | [22] |
| Projected increase in Nebraska heavy-precipitation days by 2050 cited in Lincoln resilience planning | minimum: 15; maximum: 35percent increase | Climate projections through 2050 and current resilience planning | Lincoln resilience planning using Nebraska climate projections | Conditional relationship | [23] |
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, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors reached 71.31 after target-market demand +1.3 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.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Costs: A Forensic Interrogation of Municipal GeographiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 142(8).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Lincoln city, Nebraska
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in 2020-2024 Census estimates, and Owner-occupied housing unit rate
- 5Residential Land Inventory Report as of January 1, 2026
Used for: Dwelling units permitted in 2025, Average annual permitted dwelling units, 2023-2025, Total permitted dwelling units, 2023-2025, Multi-family share of new dwelling-unit permits, 2023-2025, and Share of projected 2020-2050 dwelling-unit growth expected primarily in new growth areas on city edges
- 6Lincoln, NE Economy at a Glance
Used for: Unemployment rate in June 2026, Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, Government employment in June 2026, and Government share of June 2026 nonfarm employment
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Lincoln, NE — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations in May 2025, Mean hourly wage for office and administrative support occupations in May 2025, and National mean hourly wage for office and administrative support occupations in May 2025
- 8University of Nebraska-Lincoln Fact Book
Used for: University of Nebraska-Lincoln total enrollment in Fall 2025
- 9Impact Fee Schedule
Used for: Arterial street impact fee for general retail/shopping centers under 100,000 square feet
- 10Impact Fees
Used for: Arterial street impact fee for general retail/shopping centers under 100,000 square feet and Impact fees are triggered by new construction, changes in land use, or increases in water meter size, with net-increase rules for changes
- 11Permanent, Mobile, or Inflatable Signs
Used for: Commercial sign installation and re-facing generally require permit review against zoning and sign-code requirements, with plans or elevations required by sign type
- 12Lincoln Municipal Code, Title 27 Zoning, Chapter 27.69 Signs
Used for: Commercial sign installation and re-facing generally require permit review against zoning and sign-code requirements, with plans or elevations required by sign type
- 13Lincoln Industrial Market Remains Tight as Small-Bay Demand Leads
Used for: Industrial vacancy rate in the first half of 2026, Average industrial asking rent in the first half of 2026, and Small industrial bays were reported as the strongest-demand segment and generally leasing faster than larger buildings
- 14Lincoln Retail Market Remains Resilient
Used for: Retail vacancy rate in the first half of 2026, Average retail asking rent in the first half of 2026, and Retail asking rates were reported to vary widely by location, property condition, and specialized features
- 15Lincoln Office Market Remains Stable, but Growth Is Limited
Used for: Office vacancy rate in the first half of 2026
- 16Street and Pedestrian Closures List
Used for: Multiple major street segments had active full or lane closures during the week of August 10, 2026
- 17NDOT Awarded $15.6 Million to Replace, Repair Aging Lincoln Bridges, Advancing Safety and Connectivity
Used for: Capital City Connector Lincoln Interstate Bridges construction schedule
- 18Lincoln South Beltway
Used for: Lincoln South Beltway major mainline construction status
- 19Purchasing
Used for: City and County purchasing is centrally administered and uses an electronic bidding system for vendor solicitations
- 20Procurement Guide
Used for: City and County purchasing is centrally administered and uses an electronic bidding system for vendor solicitations
- 21Procurement and Contracting
Used for: UNL purchasing-card transactions use documentation, reconciliation, financial approval, and SAP posting workflow
- 222030 Lincoln/Lancaster County Comprehensive Plan — Environmental Conditions
Used for: Lancaster County soils range from clayey to loamy; soils south of Lincoln were documented as having slower infiltration and higher runoff potential than soils north of Lincoln
- 23Resilient Lincoln
Used for: Projected increase in Nebraska heavy-precipitation days by 2050 cited in Lincoln resilience planning
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.