67.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Manhattan, New York
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Manhattan, New York. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
25Sources used
19Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.5 points average among 10 affected concepts
1.6 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Manhattan, New York
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.5 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 73.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 73.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 68.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -1.0 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 68.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 67.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsReferral ecosystem | -2.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 66.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsReferral ecosystem | -2.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Manhattan, New York
Exceptionally large Manhattan employer, employee, payroll, and nonemployer base supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Annual payroll at employer establishments in 2023: 339,413,027,000 usd. [5]
Vertical building systems and recurring façade inspection obligations support repair demand while increasing technical complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [16] [17]
Truck-route, curb, parking, loading, and congestion-zone rules reduce service-route flexibility in Manhattan
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 1.3 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Peak and overnight Congestion Relief Zone tolls for small and large trucks in August 2026: small truck peak: 14.4; small truck overnight: 3.6; large truck peak: 21.6; large truck overnight: 5.4 usd per entry subject to schedule credits and exemptions. [15] [14] [13]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Exceptionally large Manhattan employer, employee, payroll, and nonemployer base supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Vertical building systems and recurring façade inspection obligations support repair demand while increasing technical complexity2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Buildings higher than six stories require façade inspections and technical filings every five years: minimum height condition: higher than 6 stories; inspection cycle years: 5; citywide structures in program approximate: 16,000 rule and program universe [16] [17]
- Estimated housing units on July 1, 2025: 938,554 housing units [5]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Local Law 97 creates building-specific compliance obligations and a broader market for energy and mechanical retrofits1 local fact · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Local Law 97 building-size thresholds and emissions-limit timeline: single building threshold sqft greater than: 25,000; multiple buildings same lot threshold sqft greater than: 50,000; initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference date: 2026-03 regulatory thresholds [18]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
The 2026 wage floor and above-national metropolitan service wages create broad frontline staffing pressure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Metropolitan construction and maintenance wages indicate skilled-trade staffing pressure for Manhattan service operations1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Truck-route, curb, parking, loading, and congestion-zone rules reduce service-route flexibility in Manhattan1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Manhattan business and professional concentration supports referral development, while formal city procurement can extend institutional sales cycles3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
- Employer establishments in 2023: 93,904 establishments [5]
- Annual payroll at employer establishments in 2023: 339,413,027,000 usd [5]
- Adults age 25 or older with a bachelor's degree or higher during 2020-2024: 64.2 percent [5]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +3.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.79 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 | +3.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +1.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.35 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 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.0 |
| 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 | 73.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.76 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +2.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.52 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.9 |
| 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 | 70.52 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- 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 +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#5
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.9 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.28 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +2.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.28 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.83 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.17 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -1.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: 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 |
| -1.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#10
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.27 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.8 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -2.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.89 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| 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 | 67.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.9 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -2.2 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.11 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| 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 | 66.89 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.9 |
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
- Labor and staffing friction -2.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +1.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.8 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 | -2.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.4 pts | |
| Net local movement | -3.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.9 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.28 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -2.7 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.52 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.48 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
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
- Transportation, routing, and parking -2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment65.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -4.15 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 65.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 65.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +1.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.8 |
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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #5 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+1.5 pts
Average across all concepts+1.1 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Employer Establishments In 202393,904 establishments
- Employment At Employer Establishments In 20232,322,720 employees
- Annual Payroll At Employer Establishments In 2023339,413,027,000 usd
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.8 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.7 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.6 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, 2 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #13 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank2
Concepts helped most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
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 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #12 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.6 pts
Average across all concepts-1.6 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Basic Minimum Hourly Wage Effective January 1, 202617 usd per hour
- Buildings Higher Than Six Stories Require Façade Inspections And Technical Filings Every Five Yearsminimum height condition: higher than 6 stories; inspection cycle years: 5; citywide structures in program approximate: 16,000 rule and program universe
- Local Law 97 Building Size Thresholds And Emissions Limit Timelinesingle building threshold sqft greater than: 25,000; multiple buildings same lot threshold sqft greater than: 50,000; initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference date: 2026-03 regulatory thresholds
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.9 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-2.2 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #13 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.3 pts
Average across all concepts-1.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Peak And Overnight Congestion Relief Zone Tolls For Small And Large Trucks In August 2026small truck peak: 14.4; small truck overnight: 3.6; large truck peak: 21.6; large truck overnight: 5.4 usd per entry subject to schedule credits and exemptions
- Commercial Trucks Generally Must Use The Designated Truck Route Network And Use The Most Direct Route For Local Destinations Off The Networkyes rule applies
- Commercial Vehicle Parking Is Subject To Special Manhattan Rules, And The Current Overnight Parking Pilot Locations Are In Industrial Areas Outside Manhattanspecial manhattan rules: yes; overnight pilot in manhattan: no rule summary
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-2.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.1 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.9 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #9 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank6
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.0 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.9 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.8 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSStable · tested #3–#3
#4 HomeSmilesStable · tested #4–#5
#5 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#6 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #6–#10
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#9 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#10 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#14 Mr. RooterStable · 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: [5] [6] [8] [7] [9] [2]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [16] [17] [18] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [24] [7] [9] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [11] [10] [5] [16] [18] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [12] [13] [14] [15] [2] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [7] [21] [25] [13] [19] [20] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [24] [22] [23] [9] [4]Referral ecosystem: [5] [22] [23] [2]Territory quality: [5] [7] [8] [9] [15] [21] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [18] [16] [19] [20] [21] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.1 pts | — | -0.4 pts | -0.1 pts | +1.2 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.1 pts | +1.0 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.8 pts | — | -0.7 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.6 pts | — | -1.4 pts | -0.7 pts | +0.9 pts |
| #5 Jan-Pro International | +2.7 pts | — | -1.9 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.4 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #7 Workout Anytime | — | — | -1.0 pts | -0.2 pts | — |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts | -1.2 pts | — |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.3 pts | -2.2 pts | -1.9 pts | +0.8 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -2.2 pts | -2.2 pts | +0.9 pts |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +1.4 pts | -2.8 pts | -1.8 pts | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.5 pts | +1.3 pts | -2.9 pts | -2.1 pts | — |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.6 pts | +0.5 pts | -2.5 pts | -2.7 pts | +0.7 pts |
| #14 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | +0.5 pts | -2.6 pts | -2.4 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. 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 Jan-Pro International, Workout Anytime, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Manhattan, New York
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
67.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Manhattan, New York
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 66.9 to 67.1. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 67.1. Referral ecosystem added 0.8 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 2.2 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 66.9–67.1
- Category average
- 67.0
Rainbow International Restoration67.1
PuroClean66.9
Metric registry
The 32 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 | 1,664,862people | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.8percent | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Resident population density in 2020 | 74,781.6people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Supports research conclusion | [5] |
| Estimated housing units on July 1, 2025 | 938,554housing units | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Estimated households during 2020-2024 | 778,281households | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate during 2020-2024 | 25.1percent | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Housing units authorized by building permits in 2025 | 2,984housing units authorized | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Units built in buildings with four or more units from 2010 through 2025 | 72,177housing units | Housing and development series through 2025 | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [6] |
| Median gross rent during 2020-2024 | 2,197usd per month | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units during 2020-2024 | 1,090,500usd | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars during 2020-2024 | 103,931usd per year | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Context only | [5] |
| Adults age 25 or older with a bachelor's degree or higher during 2020-2024 | 64.2percent | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Employer establishments in 2023 | 93,904establishments | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Employment at employer establishments in 2023 | 2,322,720employees | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Annual payroll at employer establishments in 2023 | 339,413,027,000usd | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Nonemployer establishments in 2023 | 227,099establishments | July 1, 2025 population and housing estimates; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2023 business statistics; 2025 permits | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Adjusted Manhattan office visits relative to comparable pre-pandemic levels in June 2026 | -8.6percent | Employment through May 2026; office visits through June 2026 | Manhattan office market | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Observed Manhattan storefront vacancy rate as of April 15, 2026 | 12.9percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Manhattan (New York County), New York | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Financial District–Battery Park City storefront vacancy rate | 21.1percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | Financial District–Battery Park City, Manhattan | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| East Midtown–Turtle Bay storefront vacancy rate | 17.7percent of storefronts | Observed storefront status through April 15, 2026 | East Midtown–Turtle Bay, Manhattan | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Manhattan retail-corridor asking-rent and availability conditions in the first half of 2026 | corridors with asking rent increase: 8; corridors tracked: 16; prime corridor availability direction: tightening; areas with concentrated availability: Times Square, Herald Squarecorridor market summary | January through June 2026 | Sixteen major Manhattan retail corridors | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Basic minimum hourly wage effective January 1, 2026 | 17usd per hour | Minimum wages effective January 1, 2026 | New York City, Long Island, and Westchester | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Mean hourly wages for franchise-relevant frontline occupational groups in May 2025 | all occupations: 41.5; national all occupations: 33.54; food preparation and serving: 22.22; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 23.02; sales and related: 36.03; office and administrative support: 28.72usd per hour | May 2025 | New York-Newark-Jersey City metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Mean hourly wages for construction and installation-maintenance-repair occupational groups in May 2025 | construction and extraction: 39.49; installation maintenance and repair: 34.5usd per hour | May 2025 | New York-Newark-Jersey City metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Commercial trucks generally must use the designated truck-route network and use the most direct route for local destinations off the network | yesrule applies | Current rules accessed August 2026 | New York City truck-route network, including Manhattan zones | Used in scoring | [12] |
| Commercial-vehicle parking is subject to special Manhattan rules, and the current overnight-parking pilot locations are in industrial areas outside Manhattan | special manhattan rules: yes; overnight pilot in manhattan: norule summary | Current rules and overnight-parking pilots accessed August 2026 | Manhattan and New York City commercial-vehicle parking system | Used in scoring | [13] [14] |
| Peak and overnight Congestion Relief Zone tolls for small and large trucks in August 2026 | small truck peak: 14.4; small truck overnight: 3.6; large truck peak: 21.6; large truck overnight: 5.4usd per entry subject to schedule credits and exemptions | Toll schedule active in August 2026 | Manhattan south of and including 60th Street, excluding specified roadways and connections | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Buildings higher than six stories require façade inspections and technical filings every five years | minimum height condition: higher than 6 stories; inspection cycle years: 5; citywide structures in program approximate: 16,000rule and program universe | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | New York City buildings higher than six stories | Used in scoring | [16] [17] |
| Local Law 97 building-size thresholds and emissions-limit timeline | single building threshold sqft greater than: 25,000; multiple buildings same lot threshold sqft greater than: 50,000; initial limits begin: 2,024; stricter limits begin: 2,030; covered buildings list reference date: 2026-03regulatory thresholds | Compliance beginning in 2024; 2026 covered-building records as of March 2026 | Covered New York City buildings, including Manhattan | Used in scoring | [18] |
| Commercial Rent Tax location and rent threshold | location: Manhattan south of the center line of 96th Street; annual or annualized gross rent minimum: 250,000; sliding credit upper bound: 300,000; exemptions apply: yesregulatory thresholds | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Manhattan south of the center line of 96th Street | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Business-sign and storefront changes are governed by zoning and permit requirements, with additional approvals for designated landmarks and historic districts | yesrule applies when triggered | Current zoning and permit guidance accessed August 2026 | Manhattan properties subject to sign permits, special districts, landmark designation, or historic-district controls | Conditional relationship | [19] [20] |
| City procurement opportunities use PASSPort RFx workflows and may require accounts, invitations, roles, or prequalification; award selection can take weeks or months | passport account required to submit: yes; prequalification may apply: yes; selection timing: several weeks or monthsprocess requirements | Current opportunity-search and account requirements accessed August 2026 | New York City agency procurement accessible to Manhattan-serving vendors | Supports modeled relationship | [22] [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, City Wide reached 73.79 after target-market demand +3.1 pts, referral ecosystem +1.2 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-City Operating-Fit Model TaxonomyInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2United States Structural Inefficiency and CRE Arbitrage AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Jurisdictional Friction and Structural Capital Constraints: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Operating EnvironmentsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Franchise Neighborhood Operating Evidence TableInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5QuickFacts: New York County, New York
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Resident population density in 2020, Estimated housing units on July 1, 2025, and Estimated households during 2020-2024
- 6Manhattan Borough Profile
Used for: Units built in buildings with four or more units from 2010 through 2025
- 7Who's Minding the Storefronts? An Analysis of Storefront Vacancies in New York City
Used for: Observed Manhattan storefront vacancy rate as of April 15, 2026, Financial District–Battery Park City storefront vacancy rate, and East Midtown–Turtle Bay storefront vacancy rate
- 8New York by the Numbers: Monthly Economic and Fiscal Outlook No. 115
Used for: Adjusted Manhattan office visits relative to comparable pre-pandemic levels in June 2026
- 9Manhattan Retail Report — First Half 2026
Used for: Manhattan retail-corridor asking-rent and availability conditions in the first half of 2026
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in New York-Newark-Jersey City — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for franchise-relevant frontline occupational groups in May 2025 and Mean hourly wages for construction and installation-maintenance-repair occupational groups in May 2025
- 11Wages and Pay
Used for: Basic minimum hourly wage effective January 1, 2026
- 12Truck Routing
Used for: Commercial trucks generally must use the designated truck-route network and use the most direct route for local destinations off the network
- 13Parking a Truck or Commercial Vehicle
Used for: Commercial-vehicle parking is subject to special Manhattan rules, and the current overnight-parking pilot locations are in industrial areas outside Manhattan
- 14Loading Zones
Used for: Commercial-vehicle parking is subject to special Manhattan rules, and the current overnight-parking pilot locations are in industrial areas outside Manhattan
- 15Congestion Relief Zone Tolling
Used for: Peak and overnight Congestion Relief Zone tolls for small and large trucks in August 2026
- 16Façade Compliance
Used for: Buildings higher than six stories require façade inspections and technical filings every five years
- 17FISP Statistics
Used for: Buildings higher than six stories require façade inspections and technical filings every five years
- 18LL97 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction
Used for: Local Law 97 building-size thresholds and emissions-limit timeline
- 19Installing a Business Sign: A Step-by-Step Guide
Used for: Business-sign and storefront changes are governed by zoning and permit requirements, with additional approvals for designated landmarks and historic districts
- 20Storefronts
Used for: Business-sign and storefront changes are governed by zoning and permit requirements, with additional approvals for designated landmarks and historic districts
- 21Commercial Rent Tax
Used for: Commercial Rent Tax location and rent threshold
- 22Find Contract Opportunities
Used for: City procurement opportunities use PASSPort RFx workflows and may require accounts, invitations, roles, or prequalification; award selection can take weeks or months
- 23Respond to Contract Opportunities
Used for: City procurement opportunities use PASSPort RFx workflows and may require accounts, invitations, roles, or prequalification; award selection can take weeks or months
- 24
- 25
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.