70.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Long Beach, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Long Beach, California. Replacement and repair 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
26Sources used
18Primary sources
27Local 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
0.6 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 8 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Long Beach, California
Mister Sparky Electric, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, and Mr. Rooter produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Service-base space scarcity was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average. Workout Anytime was especially relationship-sensitive: removing discretionary-spending pressure moved it from #14 to #10 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsSales and customer acquisition | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsSales and customer acquisition | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Long Beach, California
A majority of Long Beach housing units were built before 1970, supporting recurring replacement and inspection demand
This relationship affected 7 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing units built before 1970: estimated units: 115,224; share of total housing units: 63.6; total housing units: 181,216 units and percent. [6] [2]
Lower-size industrial space in the Long Beach/Harbor Cities submarket is tightly vacant, constraining service-base options
This relationship affected 8 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Large Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial leases in Q1 2026: project: Pacific Point West, size sqft: 670,000, lessee: Anduril, address: 2401 Wardlow Rd, Long Beach, size sqft: 504,810, lessee: Amazon lease transactions. [10] [2]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was real estate and site feasibility. [6] [10] [2]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
A majority of Long Beach housing units were built before 1970, supporting recurring replacement and inspection demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
High Long Beach housing costs and a renter-majority housing structure can constrain discretionary household spending1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
CSULB and City procurement create identifiable institutional account demand for selected service categories2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- City of Long Beach 2026 procurement pipeline includes recurring and specialized service categories: electrical contractor services, emergency board up services, property and vacant lot maintenance services, property management and maintenance services, service and maintenance of fleet CNG stations, graphic signage, marine and engineering services named procurement categories [22]
- CSULB enrollment at the start of Fall 2025: 42,355 students [19] [4]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Downtown Long Beach has large event and visitor demand that is geographically and temporally concentrated2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Downtown Long Beach visitors and visits in 2024: unique visitors: 8,100,000; total visits: 25,700,000; year over year change percent: 2; comparison to 2019: within 5 percent visitors and visits [12]
- Selected major Downtown Long Beach event attendance in 2024: event: Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach, attendance: 185,000, event: Cali Vibes, attendance: 75,000, event: Insomniac Apocalypse Music Festival, attendance: 60,000, event: Day Trip Festival, attendance: 60,000 attendees [12] [4]
Event-driven demand upsideTarget-market demand
Event-demand volatilityTarget-market demand
Lower-size industrial space in the Long Beach/Harbor Cities submarket is tightly vacant, constraining service-base options1 modeled effect
Service-base space scarcityReal estate and site feasibility
Institutional selling to CSULB involves documented competitive-quote and formal-bid thresholds1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Historic-property exterior changes require design review 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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.35 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.35 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.34 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| 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 | -0.4 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.34 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.16 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.16 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#12
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.14 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.10 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.6 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.10 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.4 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.06 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.94 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Sales and customer acquisition
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.19 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.4 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Sales and customer acquisition -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Real estate and site feasibility
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.73 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.4 |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.27 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Target-market demand
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 |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.80 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 69.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated Mister Sparky Electric
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | 70.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
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 effectMixed or model dependent
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 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #6 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate41.2 percent
- Median Gross Rent1,871 usd per month
- Median Selected Monthly Owner Costs For Units With A Mortgage2,984 usd per month
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.3 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.2 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Housing Units Built Before 1970estimated units: 115,224; share of total housing units: 63.6; total housing units: 181,216 units and percent
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #8 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Large Long Beach/harbor Cities Industrial Leases In Q1 2026project: Pacific Point West, size sqft: 670,000, lessee: Anduril, address: 2401 Wardlow Rd, Long Beach, size sqft: 504,810, lessee: Amazon lease transactions
- Long Beach/harbor Cities Industrial Buildings 10,000 19,999 Square Feetinventory sqft: 7,223,002; vacancy rate percent: 1.8; availability rate percent: 2.5; average direct asking rate nnn usd per sqft per month: 1.21 market metrics
- Long Beach/harbor Cities Industrial Buildings 20,000 39,999 Square Feetinventory sqft: 7,810,091; vacancy rate percent: 2.3; availability rate percent: 6.5; average direct asking rate nnn usd per sqft per month: 1.1 market metrics
Concepts challenged most
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Sales and customer acquisition
We weighed the size of the prospect pool against local digital competition and the length of the relevant sales cycle.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 4 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. City Wide moved from #6 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted4 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Csulb Goods And Services Procurement Thresholdsunder 100000: no routine competition required except specified cases; price must be fair and reasonable; 100000 to 250000: minimum three competitive written quotes; over 250000: formal bidding; requisition threshold usd: 9,999; minimum po processing time working days: 10 procurement thresholds
- City Of Long Beach 2026 Procurement Pipeline Includes Recurring And Specialized Service Categorieselectrical contractor services, emergency board up services, property and vacant lot maintenance services, property management and maintenance services, service and maintenance of fleet CNG stations, graphic signage, marine and engineering services named procurement categories
Concepts challenged most
City WideFacility management
-0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-0.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
-0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo 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 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#2 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#3 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#4 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #1–#12
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#6 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#7 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#8 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#11
#10 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#11 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#12 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#13 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#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.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
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] [7] [12] [13] [19] [22] [2] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [25] [26] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [12] [23] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [18] [16] [17] [10] [2] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [14] [15] [4] [12]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [12] [8] [9] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [20] [21] [22] [23] [12]Referral ecosystem: [23] [22] [20] [4]Territory quality: [12] [13] [10] [24] [25] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [8] [9] [25] [26] [24] [16] [17] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Real estate and site feasibility | Sales and customer acquisition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.7 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #2 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts | — | — |
| #3 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.8 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #4 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.8 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #5 Aire Serv | — | +0.7 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #6 City Wide | +0.7 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #7 Jan-Pro International | +0.5 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts |
| #8 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.6 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — | — |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #11 HomeSmiles | +0.2 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — |
| #12 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts |
| #13 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.8 pts | — | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
Mister Sparky Electric, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle 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 Mister Sparky Electric, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Mr. Rooter; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Long Beach, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.0Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Long Beach, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.0 to 70.1. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Real estate and site feasibility reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.0–70.1
- Category average
- 70.0
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
PuroClean70.0
Metric registry
The 27 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 | 450,469people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | Long Beach, California | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025 | -3.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | Long Beach, California | Context only | [5] |
| Estimated households in 2020-2024 | 170,927households | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | Long Beach, California | Context only | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 41.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | Long Beach, California | Used in scoring | [5] [7] |
| Median gross rent | 1,871usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | Long Beach, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Median selected monthly owner costs for units with a mortgage | 2,984usd per month | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics | Long Beach, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units built before 1970 | estimated units: 115,224; share of total housing units: 63.6; total housing units: 181,216units and percent | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Long Beach, California | Used in scoring | [6] [2] |
| Sixth-cycle projected housing need for 2021-2029 | total units: 26,502; affordable units: 15,346housing units | 2021-2029 Sixth Cycle Housing Element; current mid-cycle analysis noted for 2026 | Long Beach, California | Context only | [7] |
| Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial buildings 10,000-19,999 square feet | inventory sqft: 7,223,002; vacancy rate percent: 1.8; availability rate percent: 2.5; average direct asking rate nnn usd per sqft per month: 1.21market metrics | Q1 2026 | Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial submarket | Used in scoring | [10] [2] |
| Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial buildings 20,000-39,999 square feet | inventory sqft: 7,810,091; vacancy rate percent: 2.3; availability rate percent: 6.5; average direct asking rate nnn usd per sqft per month: 1.1market metrics | Q1 2026 | Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial submarket | Used in scoring | [10] [2] |
| Large Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial leases in Q1 2026 | project: Pacific Point West, size sqft: 670,000, lessee: Anduril, address: 2401 Wardlow Rd, Long Beach, size sqft: 504,810, lessee: Amazonlease transactions | Q1 2026 | Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial submarket | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Downtown Long Beach led South Bay office occupancy decline in 2025 | south bay office vacancy rate percent q4 2025: 24.5; downtown long beach condition: accounted for nearly all South Bay negative net absorption in 2025market condition | Q4 2025 and full-year 2025 | Downtown Long Beach within South Bay office market | Context only | [11] [2] |
| Ground-floor retail occupancy varied materially across Downtown Long Beach neighborhoods in 2024 | average percent: 83; lowest: neighborhood: East Village, percent: 67.2; highest: neighborhood: Willmore, percent: 93.2; pine avenue and promenade percent: 81.5; waterfront percent: 89.2; north pine percent: 92.3percent occupied | Primarily 2024 conditions with selected 2025 CoStar and City data | Downtown Long Beach | Conditional relationship | [12] [2] [4] |
| Downtown Long Beach visitors and visits in 2024 | unique visitors: 8,100,000; total visits: 25,700,000; year over year change percent: 2; comparison to 2019: within 5 percentvisitors and visits | Primarily 2024 conditions with selected 2025 CoStar and City data | Downtown Long Beach | Supports modeled relationship | [12] |
| Selected major Downtown Long Beach event attendance in 2024 | event: Acura Grand Prix of Long Beach, attendance: 185,000, event: Cali Vibes, attendance: 75,000, event: Insomniac Apocalypse Music Festival, attendance: 60,000, event: Day Trip Festival, attendance: 60,000attendees | Primarily 2024 conditions with selected 2025 CoStar and City data | Downtown Long Beach event venues | Supports modeled relationship | [12] [4] |
| CSULB enrollment at the start of Fall 2025 | 42,355students | Start of Fall 2025 semester; final fall census was pending at publication | California State University Long Beach | Supports modeled relationship | [19] [4] |
| City of Long Beach 2026 procurement pipeline includes recurring and specialized service categories | electrical contractor services, emergency board up services, property and vacant lot maintenance services, property management and maintenance services, service and maintenance of fleet CNG stations, graphic signage, marine and engineering servicesnamed procurement categories | Upcoming 2026 procurements listed as of August 2026 | City of Long Beach procurement | Used in scoring | [22] |
| CSULB goods and services procurement thresholds | under 100000: no routine competition required except specified cases; price must be fair and reasonable; 100000 to 250000: minimum three competitive written quotes; over 250000: formal bidding; requisition threshold usd: 9,999; minimum po processing time working days: 10procurement thresholds | Current procurement thresholds accessed August 2026 | California State University Long Beach | Used in scoring | [20] [21] |
| Long Beach residential curb-parking restrictions for oversized vehicles | height inches over: 85; width inches over: 80; length feet over: 22; current public works permit limit per calendar year: 12; maximum consecutive hours with permit: 72vehicle dimensions and permit terms | Current oversized-vehicle and right-of-way permit rules accessed August 2026 | Long Beach public right-of-way adjacent to residences | Conditional relationship | [14] [15] [4] |
| Current Long Beach nonresidential development impact fees | fire facilities per sqft: commercial: 0.267, office: 0.325, industrial: 0.132; police facilities per sqft: commercial: 0.442, office: 0.538, industrial: 0.218; transportation citywide per sqft: industrial: 1.1, office: 2, retail: 3; transportation downtown cbd per sqft: office: 3, retail: 4.5; sewer capacity fee when additional capacity required usd: 144.34; douglas park sewer capacity fee usd: 67.82usd per sqft and flat fee | Effective October 1, 2025 | Long Beach with Downtown CBD and Douglas Park distinctions | Supports research conclusion | [8] [3] |
| Community Development estimates typical construction-project plan check, permit, inspection, and agency fees at about 2 percent of building costs | approximate share of building cost percent: 2; technology surcharge percent on applicable fees: 6; general plan surcharge percent on applicable fees: 6; plan check or permit processing fee usd: 115percent and usd | Current fee guidance accessed August 2026 | Long Beach development permitting | Supports research conclusion | [9] |
| Exterior changes to designated landmarks and properties in historic districts require a Certificate of Appropriateness before work | certificate required: yes; applies even without building permit: yes; common project examples: windows and doors, building repairs and additions, repainting, reroofing, solar panelsrule | Current historic-preservation review rules accessed August 2026 | Long Beach historic landmarks and historic-district properties | Conditional relationship | [25] [4] |
| Long Beach has more than 150 designated historic landmarks | 150landmarks minimum | Current designation page accessed August 2026 | Long Beach, California | Conditional relationship | [26] |
| Current statutory hourly wage floors relevant to Long Beach vary by covered worker category | california general minimum wage 2026: 16.9; covered fast food employee minimum: 20; long beach hotel worker rate effective 2025 07 01: 25; long beach concessionaire worker rate effective 2025 07 01: 18.58usd per hour | Rates effective January 1, 2026 and fast-food floor effective April 1, 2024 | California and covered Long Beach hotel/concessionaire workplaces | Context only | [16] [17] [3] |
| Selected Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim occupational wages and employment shares | all occupations: la mean hourly: 37.15, us mean hourly: 33.54; building and grounds: la share percent: 2.6, us share percent: 2.9, la mean hourly: 22.02, us mean hourly: 19.66; construction and extraction: la share percent: 3, us share percent: 4.1, la mean hourly: 37.07, us mean hourly: 31.42; installation maintenance repair: la share percent: 2.8, us share percent: 3.9, la mean hourly: 33.96, us mean hourly: 30.44; transportation material moving: la share percent: 7.8, us share percent: 8.8, la mean hourly: 26.22, us mean hourly: 23.96percent and usd per hour | May 2025 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA MSA | Context only | [18] |
| Long Beach maintains multiple Business Improvement Districts and business associations | named examples: Belmont Shore Business Association, Bixby Knolls Business Improvement Association, Downtown Long Beach Alliance, Zaferia Business Association, Fourth Street Business Improvement Association, Magnolia Industrial Group; city role: supports BID structure and business-resource partnershipsnetwork context | Current business-support and association directory accessed August 2026 | Long Beach business districts | Context only | [23] [4] |
| Businesses in Long Beach Business Improvement Districts are subject to additional BID fees | yesbinary rule | Current business-license and BID fee guidance accessed August 2026 | Long Beach BIDs | Conditional relationship | [24] [4] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, Mister Sparky Electric reached 70.38 after property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts and real estate and site feasibility -0.3 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. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
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
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit model definitionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Utility Delta Market Audit: Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric CRE OpportunitiesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Housing units built before 1970, Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial buildings 10,000-19,999 square feet, Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial buildings 20,000-39,999 square feet, Downtown Long Beach led South Bay office occupancy decline in 2025, and Ground-floor retail occupancy varied materially across Downtown Long Beach neighborhoods in 2024
- 3Structural Capital Friction and Municipal Extraction Mechanisms: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Current Long Beach nonresidential development impact fees and Current statutory hourly wage floors relevant to Long Beach vary by covered worker category
- 4Franchise data - remake - desInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Ground-floor retail occupancy varied materially across Downtown Long Beach neighborhoods in 2024, Selected major Downtown Long Beach event attendance in 2024, CSULB enrollment at the start of Fall 2025, Long Beach residential curb-parking restrictions for oversized vehicles, and Exterior changes to designated landmarks and properties in historic districts require a Certificate of Appropriateness before work
- 5QuickFacts: Long Beach city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025, Estimated households in 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing-unit rate, and Median gross rent
- 6DP04: Selected Housing Characteristics, 2024 ACS 1-Year Estimates
Used for: Housing units built before 1970
- 7Housing Element
Used for: Owner-occupied housing-unit rate and Sixth-cycle projected housing need for 2021-2029
- 8Development Impact Fees — Fee Changes Effective 10/1/2025
Used for: Current Long Beach nonresidential development impact fees
- 9Community Development Fee Schedules
Used for: Community Development estimates typical construction-project plan check, permit, inspection, and agency fees at about 2 percent of building costs
- 10South Bay Industrial Research Report 2026 Q1
Used for: Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial buildings 10,000-19,999 square feet, Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial buildings 20,000-39,999 square feet, and Large Long Beach/Harbor Cities industrial leases in Q1 2026
- 11South Bay Office Research Report 2025 Q4
Used for: Downtown Long Beach led South Bay office occupancy decline in 2025
- 122025 Economic Profile
Used for: Ground-floor retail occupancy varied materially across Downtown Long Beach neighborhoods in 2024, Downtown Long Beach visitors and visits in 2024, and Selected major Downtown Long Beach event attendance in 2024
- 13
- 14Permits and Guidelines
Used for: Long Beach residential curb-parking restrictions for oversized vehicles
- 15Temporary Oversized Vehicle Parking Permit
Used for: Long Beach residential curb-parking restrictions for oversized vehicles
- 16Minimum Wage
Used for: Current statutory hourly wage floors relevant to Long Beach vary by covered worker category
- 17Minimum Wage
Used for: Current statutory hourly wage floors relevant to Long Beach vary by covered worker category
- 18Occupational Employment and Wages in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim — May 2025
Used for: Selected Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim occupational wages and employment shares
- 19CSULB student enrollment for fall 2025 climbs to record levels
Used for: CSULB enrollment at the start of Fall 2025
- 20Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: CSULB goods and services procurement thresholds
- 21All Purchases Requiring a Binding Agreement or Insurance
Used for: CSULB goods and services procurement thresholds
- 22Upcoming Contracting Opportunities
Used for: City of Long Beach 2026 procurement pipeline includes recurring and specialized service categories
- 23Partnerships & Resources
Used for: Long Beach maintains multiple Business Improvement Districts and business associations
- 24Taxes & Fees
Used for: Businesses in Long Beach Business Improvement Districts are subject to additional BID fees
- 25Certificate of Appropriateness
Used for: Exterior changes to designated landmarks and properties in historic districts require a Certificate of Appropriateness before work
- 26Historic Landmarks
Used for: Long Beach has more than 150 designated historic landmarks
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.