Local operating-model alignment analysis

Best Franchise Opportunities in Nashua, New Hampshire, According to Our Study

Compare 13 franchise concepts in Nashua and see how Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count and Owner-occupied housing share shaped local fit scores.

What “best” means in this rankingBest means the franchise opportunities scoring highest in our Nashua study. The study does not estimate earning potential or determine which franchise is right for you. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
Analysis by Thomas Jepsen, MSc Model: 0.10.0
See the results Access the evidence

Summary

FASTSIGNS ranks first among the franchise opportunities assessed for Nashua, New Hampshire, 0.05 points ahead of ActionCOACH

We compared 13 franchise concepts against Nashua's modeled operating realities. The model used local hospitals and colleges as a proxy for institutional and professional account relationships. This created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts whose operating models are sensitive to commercial and institutional account relationships. [29] [30] [31] [32] Owner-occupied homes made up 55.8% of occupied housing in Nashua in the 2020–2024 estimates. The model uses this measure when assessing exposure to homeowner customers. [1] [2]

FASTSIGNS scored 70.27. FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH, and City Wide Facility Solutions received the highest scores of 70.27, 70.22, and 70.16 among the 13 franchise opportunities assessed under Nashua, New Hampshire operating conditions. The biggest positive score impact for FASTSIGNS came from population density and added 0.25 points through nearby customer base. [1] [2] The model separately applied a -0.10-point general operating-friction adjustment. Between the two, the largest direct difference versus ActionCOACH came from population density. It contributed +0.25 points to FASTSIGNS' score. It had no score effect on ActionCOACH. [1] [2]

Evidence assessed
  • Local reality: Population density. [1] [2]
  • Impact on our study: In the model, FASTSIGNS benefits from dense local walk-in customer demand. The operating assumption used here is: Depends on customers visiting a fixed location.
  • Modeled consequence: The model assigned +0.25 points through nearby customer base.

What this means: this is a modeled study of documented local conditions against franchise-specific operating assumptions. It is not an investment recommendation.

Best franchise opportunities assessed

Top 10 franchises that scored best in our study

Study the score tables when results are close.
RankFranchiseLocal fit scoreLargest advantageLargest constraintEvidence confidence
1FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source
70.27
+0.25 ptsPopulation density -0.10 ptsPermit-process friction and noncompliance penalties Moderate evidence confidence
2ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source
70.22
+0.32 ptsLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) No material negative scored relationshipModerate evidence confidence
3City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility ManagementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 Item 7 source
70.16
+0.26 ptsLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) No material negative scored relationshipModerate evidence confidence
4PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source
69.94
+0.21 ptsLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) -0.35 ptsOwner-occupied housing share Moderate evidence confidence
5Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source
69.92
+0.18 ptsLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) -0.35 ptsOwner-occupied housing share Moderate evidence confidence
6HomeSmilesRecurring Property MaintenanceInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 Item 7 source
69.88
+0.19 ptsCivilian labor-force participation -0.58 ptsOwner-occupied housing share Moderate evidence confidence
7Workout AnytimeFull-Service FitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 Item 7 source
69.80
+0.64 ptsPopulation density -0.68 ptsPermit surcharge for work started before permit Moderate evidence confidence
8Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source
69.64
+0.13 ptsLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) -0.53 ptsOwner-occupied housing share Moderate evidence confidence
9Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source
69.61
+0.05 ptsRenter-occupied housing share -0.47 ptsOwner-occupied housing share Moderate evidence confidence
10ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source
69.59
+0.07 ptsRenter-occupied housing share -0.53 ptsOwner-occupied housing share Moderate evidence confidence

View all 13 score calculations

How the ranking works

Scoring walkthrough for Nashua, New Hampshire

Follow the scoring workflow, then review the current results on this page.

SCORING OVERVIEW

This animation illustrates the scoring workflow. Use the current rankings and calculations on this page as the authoritative results.

Animated overview of the scoring workflow in Nashua, New Hampshire.
See the current comparison and calculation

Cross-concept impact analysis

The local conditions that moved scores most

A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.

Most impactful relationship #1
Local condition55.8%Owner-occupied housing share
Operating exposurethe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
9 of 13 concepts affected69% of concepts assessed
Mister Sparky ElectricHomeSmilesAire ServPillar To Post Home Inspectors+5
Most impactful relationship #2
Local condition2,961.7 people per square milePopulation density
Operating exposurenearby membership base
2 of 13 concepts affected15% of concepts assessed
Workout AnytimeFASTSIGNS
Most impactful relationship #3
Local condition44.2%Renter-occupied housing share
Operating exposurerenter-oriented residential demand
6 of 13 concepts affected46% of concepts assessed
FASTSIGNSZOOM DRAINPuroCleanRainbow International Restoration+2
Most impactful relationship #4
Local condition$1,737 per monthMedian gross rent
Operating exposurehousing costs squeezing gym-membership sp…
1 of 13 concepts affected8% of concepts assessed
Workout Anytime
Most impactful relationship #5
Local condition70.7%Civilian labor-force participation
Operating exposureLarge time-constrained working-household…
1 of 13 concepts affected8% of concepts assessed
HomeSmiles
Details for Owner-occupied housing share × the city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Relationship #1Owner-occupied housing share the city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Nashua evidence55.8% [1] [2]Owner-occupied housing share
United States
65.2%
Difference
-9.4 percentage points
Model exposurethe city's lower owner-occupancy rate

Most relevant modeled attributes: homeownership dependency.

Average effect-0.50 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence4.516 ptsLargest single effect-0.65 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services-0.65 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance-0.59 pts
Aire ServHVAC-0.53 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection-0.53 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services-0.53 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services-0.53 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy-0.47 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration-0.35 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration-0.35 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Source
Details for Population density × nearby membership base
Relationship #2Population density nearby membership base
Nashua evidence2,961.7 people per square mile [1] [2]Population density
United States
93.8 people per square mile
Difference
+2,867.9 people per square mile
Model exposurenearby membership base

Most relevant modeled attributes: customer facing fixed location.

Average effect+0.44 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence0.882 ptsLargest single effect+0.64 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness+0.64 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics+0.25 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Source
Details for Renter-occupied housing share × renter-oriented residential demand
Relationship #3Renter-occupied housing share renter-oriented residential demand
Nashua evidence44.2% [1] [2]Renter-occupied housing share
United States
34.8%
Difference
+9.4 percentage points
Model exposurerenter-oriented residential demand

Most relevant modeled attributes: multi family housing dependency.

Average effect+0.06 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence0.378 ptsLargest single effect+0.07 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics+0.07 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services+0.07 pts
PuroCleanProperty Restoration+0.06 pts
Rainbow International RestorationProperty Restoration+0.06 pts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance+0.06 pts
Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims Advocacy+0.05 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Source
Details for Median gross rent × housing costs squeezing gym-membership spending
Relationship #4Median gross rent housing costs squeezing gym-membership spending
Nashua evidence$1,737 per month [1] [2]Median gross rent
United States
$1,413 per month
Difference
+$324 per month
Model exposurehousing costs squeezing gym-membership spending

Most relevant modeled attributes: fitness membership model and discretionary consumer spend.

Average effect-0.32 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence0.318 ptsLargest single effect-0.32 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness-0.32 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Source
Details for Civilian labor-force participation × Large time-constrained working-household base
Relationship #5Civilian labor-force participation Large time-constrained working-household base
Nashua evidence70.7% [1] [2]Civilian labor-force participation
United States
63%
Difference
+7.7 percentage points
Model exposureLarge time-constrained working-household base

Most relevant modeled attributes: household time constraint dependency.

Average effect+0.19 ptsTotal absolute modeled influence0.194 ptsLargest single effect+0.19 ptsEvidence confidenceHigh
Effect across concepts
HomeSmilesRecurring Property Maintenance+0.19 pts
Selected by total absolute modeled influence across affected concepts.Source

How these were selected: We selected these conditions by adding the size of their score changes across affected franchises. We used both increases and decreases.

Explore all factors influencing specific franchises

Conditions visualized

Some Nashua conditions affect franchise models differently

See how local conditions affect modeled operating exposure, exact score contributions and the resulting differences. Click to open the images.

Why the ranking came out this way

#1 vs. #2

How the scores differ

FASTSIGNS vs. ActionCOACH

The scores are close enough to treat these franchises as a leading group rather than a decisive first and second place.

Modeled gap: 0.05 pts
Modeled relationshipFASTSIGNSActionCOACHDifference
Population density [1] [2]+0.25 pts0.00 pts+0.25 pts
Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) [29] [30] [31] [32]+0.15 pts+0.32 pts-0.17 pts
Permit surcharge for work started before permit [23]-0.10 pts0.00 pts-0.10 pts
Renter-occupied housing share [1] [2]+0.07 pts0.00 pts+0.07 pts

Selected material differences are shown; omitted drivers and rounding mean these rows need not sum to the final score gap.

Population density created the largest gap in this comparison. It contributed +0.25 points to FASTSIGNS. It had no score effect on ActionCOACH. [1] [2]

How to read the results

As a group, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH, and City Wide Facility Solutions received a larger average modeled benefit from local hospitals and colleges through referral channels than the remaining franchises. [29] [30] [31] [32]

The rank changes for FASTSIGNS when the study is rerun after factor categories are removed.

Contribution path

Contribution path for FASTSIGNS

Baseline70.00Final70.27Net change+0.27 pts
Score componentScore effectScore after component
Population density [1] [2]Nearby customer base
+0.25 pts
70.25
Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) [29] [30] [31] [32]Commercial and institutional account relationships
+0.15 pts
70.40
Model adjustmentNot local evidence
-0.10 pts
70.30
Permit surcharge for work started before permit [23]Permit-process friction and noncompliance penalties
-0.10 pts
70.20
Renter-occupied housing share [1] [2]High renter-household concentration
+0.07 pts
70.27

View FASTSIGNS in the shared calculation table

Inside the analysis workflow

The analytical system behind the report

Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.

How ranking sensitivity is stress-testedA methodology view of the sensitivity process. Production pages use current precomputed sensitivity results; this screenshot shows the testing workflow rather than a live result.
13Franchises evaluated
34Local sources used
32Primary local sources
19Local metrics

Evaluation set

Why these franchises?

This is not an exhaustive list of available franchises.

13Brands evaluated

We included brands with enough operating or public information to build scoring models, using materials from various sources.

Unresolved inputs may reduce confidence or remain conditional until their applicability is established.

Pipeline Franchises working with a brand does not add points in the analysis.

Study conclusions

Notable observations from our study

Highest category average (limited comparison)Property Restoration

69.93 average across 2 franchises (scores 69.92–69.94)

Largest positive factorReferral channels

0.20 points added on average for 7 franchises

Largest negative factorCustomer demand

0.26 points subtracted on average for 11 franchises

Brand most prone to assumptions changingWorkout Anytime

Tested rank range spans 12 positions (#1–#13)

Compare all assessed concepts

Local impact by franchise concept

13 franchises modeled. View a brand to see factors applied to its calculation. See every factor category in the shared calculation table. Their totals include positive and negative relationships. This includes effects that offset each other.

Full score ledger

Scroll across to compare franchises. Select a score contribution to inspect its calculation and evidence.

Positive scored effectNegative scored effectMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentNot included in the scoreContext only; not included in the scoreCandidate-dependent; not included in the scoreNot applicable to this operating modelNot availableNo material operating exposure resolvedNo material score adjustment
Full score ledger
Score component#1FASTSIGNS70.27#2ActionCOACH70.22#3City Wide Facility Solutions70.16#4PuroClean69.94#5Rainbow International Restoration69.92#6HomeSmiles69.88#7Workout Anytime69.80#8Mr. Rooter69.64#9Tiger Adjusters69.61#10ZOOM DRAIN69.59#11Aire Serv69.56#12Pillar To Post Home Inspectors69.49#13Mister Sparky Electric69.39
Neutral model baseline70.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.0070.00
Owner-occupied housing shareLow homeownership concentrationNashua
-0.35
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #4 to #3 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.3
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9825
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.3537
Final effect
-0.3537
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.35
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #5 to #4 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.3
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.98
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.3528
Final effect
-0.3528
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.58
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #6 to #1 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.5
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.585
Final effect
-0.585
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.53
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #8 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.45
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.5265
Final effect
-0.5265
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.47
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #9 to #10 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.4
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.4692
Final effect
-0.4692
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.53
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #10 to #7 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.45
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.5265
Final effect
-0.5265
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.53
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #9 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.45
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.52785
Final effect
-0.52785
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.53
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #12 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.45
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.52785
Final effect
-0.52785
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.65
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #13 to #11 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationOwner-occupied housing share55.8%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipthe city's lower owner-occupancy rate
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.55
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.98
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.6468
Final effect
-0.6468
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Population densityNearby customer baseNashua
+0.25
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #1 to #3 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationPopulation density2,961.7 people per square mileNashua2020
Operating relationshipNearby customer base
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3.5
City-condition strength
0.55
Operating exposure
0.1312
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
0.246971
Final effect
0.246971
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
0.00
Source [1] [2]
Local observationPopulation density2,961.7 people per square mileNashua2020
Operating relationshipNearby customer base
+0.64
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationPopulation density2,961.7 people per square mileNashua2020
Operating relationshipnearby membership base
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3.5
City-condition strength
0.55
Operating exposure
0.3375
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
0.63507
Final effect
0.63507
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Median gross rentHousing costs squeezing gym-membership spendingNashua
-0.32
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian gross rent$1,737 per monthNashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiphousing costs squeezing gym-membership spending
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
2.5
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.6512
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.318256
Final effect
-0.318256
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Civilian labor-force participationLarge time-constrained working-household baseNashua
+0.19
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationCivilian labor-force participation70.7%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshipLarge time-constrained working-household base
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.4138
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.193655
Final effect
0.193655
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Retail sales per capitaStrong local retail spendingNashua
+0.13
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRetail sales per capita$69,557Nashua2022
Operating relationshipStrong local retail spending
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.85
Operating exposure
0.1338
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.266857
Final effect
0.133429
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Renter-occupied housing shareHigh renter-household concentrationNashua
+0.07
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.075
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.07038
Final effect
0.07038
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.06
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.1312
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9825
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.123795
Final effect
0.061898
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.06
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.1312
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.98
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.12348
Final effect
0.06174
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.06
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.1312
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.12285
Final effect
0.061425
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.05
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.1125
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.10557
Final effect
0.052785
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.07
Evidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.15
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.1404
Final effect
0.0702
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.043987
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationRenter-occupied housing share44.2%Nashua2020–2024
Operating relationshiprenter-oriented residential demand
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0937
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.087975
Final effect
0.043987
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.5
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Median household incomeStrong household discretionary spending capacityNashua
+0.029272
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0621
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9825
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.029272
Final effect
0.029272
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.029197
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0621
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.98
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.029197
Final effect
0.029197
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.032276
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.069
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.032276
Final effect
0.032276
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.035695
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.3043
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.142782
Final effect
0.035695
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
0.25
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.031671
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0677
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.031671
Final effect
0.031671
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.025482
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0543
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.025482
Final effect
0.025482
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.043774
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0935
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.043774
Final effect
0.043774
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.047527
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.1013
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.047527
Final effect
0.047527
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.020224
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0431
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.020224
Final effect
0.020224
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.040349
Scored; below display thresholdEvidence confidence: HighSource [1] [2]
Local observationMedian household income$96,326Nashua2020–2024 (2024 dollars)
Operating relationshipStrong household discretionary spending capacity
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.0858
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.98
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.040349
Final effect
0.040349
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Customer demand — Factor subtotal+0.32-0.26-0.26-0.30+0.49-0.49-0.39-0.41-0.44-0.51-0.61
Repair and replacement demand — Factor subtotal
Local competition — Factor subtotal
Hiring and staffing conditions — Factor subtotal
Driving, routing, and parking — Factor subtotal
Finding and operating the right location — Factor subtotal
Winning new customers — Factor subtotal
Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)Commercial and institutional account relationshipsNashua
+0.15
Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipcommercial and institutional account relationships
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.242
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.151373
Final effect
0.151373
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.32
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #2 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipbusiness-owner and professional referral base
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.5134
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.321179
Final effect
0.321179
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.26
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #3 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipproperty-manager and institutional account access
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.4143
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.259177
Final effect
0.259177
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.21
Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipLocal professional and business connections
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.3277
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9825
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.206044
Final effect
0.206044
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.18
Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipLocal professional and business connections
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.2929
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.98
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.18368
Final effect
0.18368
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.18
Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipLocal professional and business connections
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.2884
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.179957
Final effect
0.179957
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
+0.13
Evidence confidence: HighSource [29]
Selected observation (proxy input)Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 bedsNashua
Operating relationshipLocal professional and business connections
Institutional-density proxy inputs
Southern New Hampshire Medical Center bed count188 beds [29]
St. Joseph Hospital bed count208 beds [30]
Rivier University enrollment2,173 students [31]
Nashua Community College enrollment1,366 students [32]
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
4
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.2134
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
0.5
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.975
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
0.133157
Final effect
0.133157
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Referral channels — Factor subtotal+0.15+0.32+0.26+0.21+0.18+0.18+0.13
Territory conditions — Factor subtotal
Permit surcharge for work started before permitPermit-process friction and noncompliance penaltiesNashua
-0.10
Evidence confidence: HighSource [23]
Local observationPermit surcharge for work started before permit100%NashuaCurrent fee schedule verified 2026-09-09
Operating relationshipPermit-process friction and noncompliance penalties
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.1065
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
-0.09996
Final effect
-0.09996
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
0.00
Source [23]
Local observationPermit surcharge for work started before permit100%NashuaCurrent fee schedule verified 2026-09-09
Operating relationshipPermit-process friction and noncompliance penalties
-0.68
Largest driverRelationship test: Rank #7 to #1 without this driver.Evidence confidence: HighSource [23]
Local observationPermit surcharge for work started before permit100%NashuaCurrent fee schedule verified 2026-09-09
Operating relationshipPermit-process friction and noncompliance penalties
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
3
City-condition strength
0.4
Operating exposure
0.7261
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
0.9775
Eligibility weight
0.8
Effect before model controls
-0.68136
Final effect
-0.68136
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Model adjustmentNot local evidence
-0.10
Model adjustmentNot local evidence
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
0.1
City-condition strength
1
Operating exposure
1
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
1
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.1
Final effect
-0.1
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.10
Model adjustmentNot local evidence
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
0.1
City-condition strength
1
Operating exposure
1
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
1
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.1
Final effect
-0.1
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
-0.10
Model adjustmentNot local evidence
Calculation controls
Relationship maximum
0.1
City-condition strength
1
Operating exposure
1
Evidence confidence
1
Provenance multiplier
1
Geographic applicability
1
Profile effect multiplier
1
Eligibility weight
1
Effect before model controls
-0.1
Final effect
-0.1
Single-relationship cap
1
Modifier cap
1
Correlation control
1
Effect-family cap
1
Factor cap
1
Total local-movement cap
1
Local rules and operating requirements — Factor subtotal-0.20-0.10-0.10-0.68
Advantages+0.47+0.32+0.26+0.30+0.27+0.47+0.80+0.16+0.08+0.11+0.09+0.02+0.04
Constraints-0.20-0.10-0.10-0.35-0.35-0.59-1.00-0.53-0.47-0.53-0.53-0.53-0.65
Net local movement+0.269+0.221+0.159-0.056-0.078-0.118-0.195-0.362-0.391-0.413-0.436-0.508-0.606
Full-precision calculated score70.26876470.22117970.15917769.94351369.92181769.88231369.80457869.63832869.60906769.58747469.56366569.49237469.393549
Published local fit70.2770.2270.1669.9469.9269.8869.8069.6469.6169.5969.5669.4969.39

Factor calculations use full precision. Factor totals and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

#170.27

FASTSIGNS

Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285

Advantage +0.25 pts Population densityConstraint -0.10 pts Permit-process friction and noncompliance penalties

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive (#1–#7 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (1)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate constraint

Institutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: HighSource [24]City of Nashua procurement jurisdiction
Operating relationshipInstitutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.47 pts
Local constraints-0.10 pts
Model adjustments-0.10 pts
Net score movement+0.269 pts
Final score70.27

3 advantages and 1 local constraint, plus 1 model adjustment, used to calculate the score for FASTSIGNS.

Largest individual local score driverPopulation density+0.25 pts
Overall score movement+0.269 ptsThis is the total after all score components are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Brand material assessed
3 sources
YouTube videoYouTube videoYouTube video

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand +0.32 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#7
#270.22

ActionCOACH

Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513

Advantage +0.32 pts Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)No material negative local adjustment identified

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#1–#3 when factors were removed)

View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.32 pts
Local constraints0.00 pts
Model adjustments-0.10 pts
Net score movement+0.221 pts
Final score70.22

1 advantage and 0 local constraints, plus 1 model adjustment, used to calculate the score for ActionCOACH.

Largest individual local score driverLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)+0.32 pts
Overall score movement+0.221 ptsThis is the total after all score components are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Referral channels +0.32 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#3
#370.16

City Wide Facility Solutions

Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730

Advantage +0.26 pts Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)No material negative local adjustment identified

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#2–#4 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (1)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate constraint

Institutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: HighSource [24]City of Nashua procurement jurisdiction
Operating relationshipInstitutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.26 pts
Local constraints0.00 pts
Model adjustments-0.10 pts
Net score movement+0.159 pts
Final score70.16

1 advantage and 0 local constraints, plus 1 model adjustment, used to calculate the score for City Wide Facility Solutions.

Largest individual local score driverLocal hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)+0.26 pts
Overall score movement+0.159 ptsThis is the total after all score components are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Referral channels +0.26 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#4
#469.94

PuroClean

Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145

Advantage +0.21 pts Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)Constraint -0.35 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#3–#6 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (4)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate advantage

Mapped flood or coastal flood exposure

Repair and replacement demand
Evidence confidence: HighSource [16]FEMA-mapped flood hazard areas in Nashua
Operating relationshipMapped flood or coastal flood exposure
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate constraint

Corridor or highway construction disruption

Driving, routing, and parking
Evidence confidence: HighSource [26] [27] [25]West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
Operating relationshipShort-term driving and routing disruption
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Potential candidate advantage

Contractor and trade referral channels

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: ModerateSource [34]Nashua contractor-referral submarket
Operating relationshipContractor and trade referral channels
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Potential candidate constraint

Institutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: HighSource [24]City of Nashua procurement jurisdiction
Operating relationshipInstitutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.30 pts
Constraints-0.35 pts
Net local movement-0.056 pts
Final score69.94

2 advantages and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for PuroClean. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.029 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.35 pts
Overall local score movement-0.056 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.26 pts
Tested rank range
#3–#6
#569.92

Rainbow International Restoration

Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900

Advantage +0.18 pts Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)Constraint -0.35 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#4–#6 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (4)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate advantage

Mapped flood or coastal flood exposure

Repair and replacement demand
Evidence confidence: HighSource [16]FEMA-mapped flood hazard areas in Nashua
Operating relationshipMapped flood or coastal flood exposure
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate constraint

Corridor or highway construction disruption

Driving, routing, and parking
Evidence confidence: HighSource [26] [27] [25]West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
Operating relationshipShort-term driving and routing disruption
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Potential candidate advantage

Contractor and trade referral channels

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: ModerateSource [34]Nashua contractor-referral submarket
Operating relationshipContractor and trade referral channels
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
Potential candidate constraint

Institutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: HighSource [24]City of Nashua procurement jurisdiction
Operating relationshipInstitutional procurement and vendor-onboarding friction
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.27 pts
Constraints-0.35 pts
Net local movement-0.078 pts
Final score69.92

2 advantages and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for Rainbow International Restoration. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.029 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.35 pts
Overall local score movement-0.078 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.26 pts
Tested rank range
#4–#6
#669.88

HomeSmiles

Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800

Advantage +0.19 pts Civilian labor-force participationConstraint -0.59 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#5–#7 when factors were removed)

View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.47 pts
Constraints-0.59 pts
Net local movement-0.118 pts
Final score69.88

3 advantages and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for HomeSmiles. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.032 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.58 pts
Overall local score movement-0.118 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.30 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#7
#769.80

Workout Anytime

Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550

Advantage +0.64 pts Population densityConstraint -0.68 pts Permit surcharge for work started before permit

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive (#1–#13 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (3)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate constraint

Mapped flood or coastal flood exposure

Repair and replacement demand
Evidence confidence: HighSource [16]FEMA-mapped flood hazard areas in Nashua
Operating relationshipMapped flood or coastal flood exposure
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate constraint

Floodplain development and elevation requirements

Local rules and operating requirements
Evidence confidence: HighSource [28]Nashua Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zones A, AE and AO)
Operating relationshipFloodplain development and elevation requirements
Applicability depends on the selected floodplain
Potential candidate constraint

Historic-district or design-review requirements

Local rules and operating requirements
Evidence confidence: HighSource [22]Nashua Historic District
Operating relationshipHistoric-district or design-review requirements
Applicability depends on the selected historic district
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.80 pts
Constraints-1.00 pts
Net local movement-0.195 pts
Final score69.80

2 advantages and 2 constraints used to calculate the score for Workout Anytime. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.036 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverPermit surcharge for work started before permit-0.68 pts
Overall local score movement-0.195 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Local rules and operating requirements -0.68 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#13
#869.64

Mr. Rooter

Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675

Advantage +0.13 pts Local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy)Constraint -0.53 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive (#6–#11 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (1)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate constraint

Corridor or highway construction disruption

Driving, routing, and parking
Evidence confidence: HighSource [26] [27] [25]West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
Operating relationshipShort-term driving and routing disruption
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.16 pts
Constraints-0.53 pts
Net local movement-0.362 pts
Final score69.64

1 advantage and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for Mr. Rooter. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.032 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.53 pts
Overall local score movement-0.362 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.49 pts
Tested rank range
#6–#11
#969.61

Tiger Adjusters

Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500

Advantage +0.05 pts Renter-occupied housing shareConstraint -0.47 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#8–#11 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (1)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate advantage

Contractor and trade referral channels

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: ModerateSource [34]Nashua contractor-referral submarket
Operating relationshipContractor and trade referral channels
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.08 pts
Constraints-0.47 pts
Net local movement-0.391 pts
Final score69.61

1 advantage and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for Tiger Adjusters. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.025 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.47 pts
Overall local score movement-0.391 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Brand material assessed
1 source
YouTube video

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.39 pts
Tested rank range
#8–#11
#1069.59

ZOOM DRAIN

Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500

Advantage +0.07 pts Renter-occupied housing shareConstraint -0.53 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#9–#12 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (2)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate constraint

Corridor or highway construction disruption

Driving, routing, and parking
Evidence confidence: HighSource [26] [27] [25]West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
Operating relationshipShort-term driving and routing disruption
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Potential candidate advantage

Contractor and trade referral channels

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: ModerateSource [34]Nashua contractor-referral submarket
Operating relationshipContractor and trade referral channels
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.11 pts
Constraints-0.53 pts
Net local movement-0.413 pts
Final score69.59

1 advantage and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for ZOOM DRAIN. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.044 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.53 pts
Overall local score movement-0.413 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

FDD screenshots

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.41 pts
Tested rank range
#9–#12
#1169.56

Aire Serv

Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708

No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.53 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#9–#11 when factors were removed)

View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.09 pts
Constraints-0.53 pts
Net local movement-0.436 pts
Final score69.56

0 advantages and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for Aire Serv. 2 additional scored adjustments are below the display threshold and contribute +0.092 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.53 pts
Overall local score movement-0.436 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
1 image
Territory rights
1 image
Item 20
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Brand material assessed
1 source
YouTube video

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.44 pts
Tested rank range
#9–#11
#1269.49

Pillar To Post Home Inspectors

Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290

No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.53 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive (#10–#12 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (1)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate advantage

Real-estate professional referral channels

Referral channels
Evidence confidence: ModerateSource [33]Greater Manchester/Nashua REALTOR board jurisdiction
Operating relationshipReal-estate professional referral channels
Applicability depends on the selected submarket
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.02 pts
Constraints-0.53 pts
Net local movement-0.508 pts
Final score69.49

0 advantages and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.020 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.53 pts
Overall local score movement-0.508 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Litigation
1 image
Other fees (item 6)
1 image
Estimated initial investment
2 images
Territory rights
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Brand material assessed
2 sources
YouTube videoYouTube video

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.51 pts
Tested rank range
#10–#12
#1369.39

Mister Sparky Electric

Initial investment: $133,273–$276,702

No material positive local adjustment identifiedConstraint -0.65 pts Owner-occupied housing share

Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive (#8–#13 when factors were removed)

Candidate-specific considerations (1)

Not included in this score

Potential candidate constraint

Corridor or highway construction disruption

Driving, routing, and parking
Evidence confidence: HighSource [26] [27] [25]West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
Operating relationshipShort-term driving and routing disruption
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
View full franchise scores
Baseline70.00
Advantages+0.04 pts
Constraints-0.65 pts
Net local movement-0.606 pts
Final score69.39

0 advantages and 1 constraint used to calculate the score for Mister Sparky Electric. 1 additional scored adjustment is below the display threshold and contributes +0.040 points to the total.

Largest individual local score driverOwner-occupied housing share-0.65 pts
Overall local score movement-0.606 ptsThis is the total after all factors are accounted for.

View in shared calculation table

Evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full franchise calculation

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Adequate
Franchise-profile completeness
Strong
Source-evidence confidence
Strong
Geographic applicability
Strong
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Customer demand -0.61 pts
Tested rank range
#8–#13

Factor categories with the highest impact

Which local conditions had the biggest impact?

We removed one factor category at a time, recalculated everything, and measured movements.

Observed model effectMixed or model dependent

Customer demand

We tested how much of the city’s potential customer and business demand remained after accounting for operating challenges.

Why concepts react differently

We modeled a measurable customer demand impact on 11 of the 13 franchises in Nashua. Removing the entire customer demand category changed the ranks of 13 franchises. FASTSIGNS moved from #1 to #7, tied for the largest rank change among franchises directly affected by this category.

Concepts adjusted11 of 13
Average among affected-0.26 pts
Average across all concepts-0.22 pts
Concepts changing rank13

What we observed

  • Population Density2,961.7 people per square mile
  • Owner Occupied Housing Share55.8%
  • Renter Occupied Housing Share44.2%

Concepts helped most

Workout AnytimeFull-Service Fitness
+0.49 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns & Graphics
+0.32 pts

Concepts challenged most

Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical Services
-0.61 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome Inspection
-0.51 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain Services
-0.49 pts
Aire ServHVAC
-0.44 pts
ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain Services
-0.41 pts
Factors without a displayed score adjustment
  • Repair and replacement demandCandidate-dependent; not included in the score
  • Local competitionNot included in the score
  • Hiring and staffing conditionsNot included in the score
  • Driving, routing, and parkingCandidate-dependent; not included in the score
  • Finding and operating the right locationNot included in the score
  • Winning new customersNot included in the score
  • Territory conditionsMeasured; no meaningful local adjustment

Rank stability

Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?

FASTSIGNS ranged from #1 to #7 across the recorded factor-category removal tests. Removing the customer demand factor produced the #7 result, 6 places below its baseline rank of #1.

Rankings across factor-removal tests
The leader’s margin in each test
Score changes when factors are removed
The ranking with one factor removed
The local relationships behind that test
All test results

10 complete tests; 7 changed no scores

FranchiseCurrent rankAverage test rankBest test rankWorst test rankWorst-rank test
FASTSIGNS#11.7#1#7Customer demand
ActionCOACH#22.0#1#3Local rules and operating requirements
City Wide Facility Solutions#33.0#2#4Local rules and operating requirements
PuroClean#44.2#3#6Referral channels
Rainbow International Restoration#55.0#4#6Local rules and operating requirements
HomeSmiles#66.1#5#7Referral channels; Local rules and operating requirements
Workout Anytime#76.7#1#13Customer demand
Mr. Rooter#88.1#6#11Referral channels
Tiger Adjusters#99.1#8#11Customer demand
ZOOM DRAIN#1010.1#9#12Customer demand
Aire Serv#1110.7#9#11Repair and replacement demand; Local competition; Hiring and staffing conditions; Driving, routing, and parking; Finding and operating the right location; Winning new customers; Territory conditions; Local rules and operating requirements
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#1211.8#10#12Repair and replacement demand; Local competition; Hiring and staffing conditions; Driving, routing, and parking; Finding and operating the right location; Winning new customers; Referral channels; Territory conditions; Local rules and operating requirements
Mister Sparky Electric#1312.5#8#13Repair and replacement demand; Local competition; Hiring and staffing conditions; Driving, routing, and parking; Finding and operating the right location; Winning new customers; Referral channels; Territory conditions; Local rules and operating requirements

Factor-removal tests show how rankings changed when one modeled factor was excluded. They are sensitivity tests, not probabilities or confidence intervals.

Customer demand removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
ActionCOACH#2#170.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#270.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#369.94351370.106044+0.162531
Rainbow International Restoration#5#469.92181770.083680+0.161863
HomeSmiles#6#569.88231370.079957+0.197644
Mr. Rooter#8#669.63832870.033157+0.394829
FASTSIGNS#1#770.26876469.951413-0.317351
Mister Sparky Electric#13#869.39354969.900000+0.506451
Aire Serv#11#969.56366569.900000+0.336335
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1069.49237469.900000+0.407626
Tiger Adjusters#9#1169.60906769.900000+0.290933
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1269.58747469.900000+0.312526
Workout Anytime#7#1369.80457869.318640-0.485938
Repair and replacement demand removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Local competition removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Hiring and staffing conditions removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Driving, routing, and parking removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Finding and operating the right location removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Winning new customers removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Referral channels removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.117391-0.151373
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117969.900000-0.321179
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917769.900000-0.259177
Workout Anytime#7#469.80457869.8045780.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.738137-0.183680
PuroClean#4#669.94351369.737470-0.206043
HomeSmiles#6#769.88231369.702356-0.179957
Tiger Adjusters#9#869.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#969.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1069.56366569.5636650.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#1169.63832869.505171-0.133157
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Territory conditions removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
FASTSIGNS#1#170.26876470.2687640.000000
ActionCOACH#2#270.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#370.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#469.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#569.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#669.88231369.8823130.000000
Workout Anytime#7#769.80457869.8045780.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
Local rules and operating requirements removed
FranchiseCurrent rankRank after removalCurrent scoreScore after removalScore change
Workout Anytime#7#169.80457870.485938+0.681360
FASTSIGNS#1#270.26876470.368724+0.099960
ActionCOACH#2#370.22117970.2211790.000000
City Wide Facility Solutions#3#470.15917770.1591770.000000
PuroClean#4#569.94351369.9435130.000000
Rainbow International Restoration#5#669.92181769.9218170.000000
HomeSmiles#6#769.88231369.8823130.000000
Mr. Rooter#8#869.63832869.6383280.000000
Tiger Adjusters#9#969.60906769.6090670.000000
ZOOM DRAIN#10#1069.58747469.5874740.000000
Aire Serv#11#1169.56366569.5636650.000000
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors#12#1269.49237469.4923740.000000
Mister Sparky Electric#13#1369.39354969.3935490.000000
#1 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 City Wide Facility SolutionsModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#5 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #6–#11
#9 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#10 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#11 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #9–#11
#12 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsModerately sensitive · tested #10–#12
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13

Neutralizing a factor category removes it from every franchise’s calculation. Franchise-specific weighting helps explain differences in its impact.

Net factor impact

Net factor category totals across the listed brands

Within customer demand, positive effects added 0.09 points to PuroClean's score and negative effects subtracted 0.35 points, for a net -0.26 points.

Factor impact among the highest-rated franchise conceptsDiverging dot plot showing nonzero factor score contributions for the top 13 concepts. Zero-point concept-factor pairs are omitted, and factors with no nonzero contributions are excluded.+1.00+0.500.00-0.50-1.00
Customer demand
#1 FASTSIGNS · Customer demand · +0.32 pts1#4 PuroClean · Customer demand · -0.26 pts4#5 Rainbow International Restoration · Customer demand · -0.26 pts5#6 HomeSmiles · Customer demand · -0.30 pts6#7 Workout Anytime · Customer demand · +0.49 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Customer demand · -0.49 pts8#9 Tiger Adjusters · Customer demand · -0.39 pts9#10 ZOOM DRAIN · Customer demand · -0.41 pts10#11 Aire Serv · Customer demand · -0.44 pts11#12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Customer demand · -0.51 pts12#13 Mister Sparky Electric · Customer demand · -0.61 pts13
Referral channels
#1 FASTSIGNS · Referral channels · +0.15 pts1#2 ActionCOACH · Referral channels · +0.32 pts2#3 City Wide Facility Solutions · Referral channels · +0.26 pts3#4 PuroClean · Referral channels · +0.21 pts4#5 Rainbow International Restoration · Referral channels · +0.18 pts5#6 HomeSmiles · Referral channels · +0.18 pts6#8 Mr. Rooter · Referral channels · +0.13 pts8
Local rules and operating requirements
#1 FASTSIGNS · Local rules and operating requirements · -0.20 pts1#2 ActionCOACH · Local rules and operating requirements · -0.10 pts2#3 City Wide Facility Solutions · Local rules and operating requirements · -0.10 pts3#7 Workout Anytime · Local rules and operating requirements · -0.68 pts7
Primary source records by factorCustomer demand: [4] [7] [1] [2] [8] [11] [32] [31] [29] [30]Repair and replacement demand: [16]Hiring and staffing conditions: [5] [4] [6] [1] [2]Driving, routing, and parking: [1] [2] [9] [26] [27] [25]Referral channels: [14] [24] [33] [34]Territory conditions: [1] [2]Local rules and operating requirements: [1] [2] [12] [11] [15] [13] [10] [21] [19] [20] [18] [28] [22] [23] [17]
View the chart data as a table
ConceptCustomer demandReferral channelsLocal rules and operating requirements
#1 FASTSIGNS+0.32 pts+0.15 pts-0.20 pts
#2 ActionCOACH—+0.32 pts-0.10 pts
#3 City Wide Facility Solutions—+0.26 pts-0.10 pts
#4 PuroClean-0.26 pts+0.21 pts—
#5 Rainbow International Restoration-0.26 pts+0.18 pts—
#6 HomeSmiles-0.30 pts+0.18 pts—
#7 Workout Anytime+0.49 pts—-0.68 pts
#8 Mr. Rooter-0.49 pts+0.13 pts—
#9 Tiger Adjusters-0.39 pts——
#10 ZOOM DRAIN-0.41 pts——
#11 Aire Serv-0.44 pts——
#12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors-0.51 pts——
#13 Mister Sparky Electric-0.61 pts——

Results

How to read the results

As a group, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH, and City Wide Facility Solutions received a larger average modeled benefit from local hospitals and colleges through referral channels than the remaining franchises.

Category comparisons

Best franchise categories we assessed in Nashua, New Hampshire

Summaries require at least 2 concepts in the same category for inclusion.

Limited two-concept comparison

Limited comparison: Property Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Nashua, New Hampshire

69.93

2 Property Restoration franchises qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.92 to 69.94. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.94. Referral channels added 0.19 points on average across the included franchises. Customer demand reduced scores across the included franchises by 0.26 points on average.

Interpret diligently: A 0.02-point spread is too small to support an unquestionable brand-level conclusion.

Concepts compared
2
Score range
69.92–69.94
Category average
69.93
PuroClean69.94
Rainbow International Restoration69.92
Limited two-concept comparison

Limited comparison: Plumbing & Drain Services franchise opportunities assessed in Nashua, New Hampshire

69.61

2 Plumbing & Drain Services franchises qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.59 to 69.64. Mr. Rooter ranked highest at 69.64. Referral channels added 0.07 points on average across the included franchises. Customer demand reduced scores across the included franchises by 0.45 points on average.

Interpret diligently: A 0.05-point spread is too small to support an unquestionable brand-level conclusion.

Concepts compared
2
Score range
69.59–69.64
Category average
69.61
Mr. Rooter69.64
ZOOM DRAIN69.59

Metric registry

The 19 metrics behind this study

View all local metrics
MetricRaw valuePeriodGeographyRole in analysisSource
Population estimate92.4 thousand people2025-07-01Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1]
Population change since 20201.2%2020-04-01 to 2025-07-01Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Population density2,961.7 people per square mile2020Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Household count37,134 households2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1]
Owner-occupied housing share55.8%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Renter-occupied housing share44.2%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Median owner-occupied home value$403,9002020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Median monthly owner costs with a mortgage$2,447 per month2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Median gross rent$1,737 per month2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Recent-mover share12.8%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Age 65+ population share16.9%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Under-18 population share18.6%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Under-65 disability share9.6%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Under-65 uninsured share9.2%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Civilian labor-force participation70.7%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Mean travel time to work26 minutes2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Median household income$96,3262020–2024 (2024 dollars)Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]
Poverty share7.8%2020–2024Nashua, New HampshireContext only [1] [2]
Retail sales per capita$69,5572022Nashua, New HampshireUsed in scoring [1] [2]

How to use the study

Study limitations

  • We modeled local fit, not financial performance.
  • Candidate-specific considerations are required, particularly for franchises requiring a physical presence.
  • Conditional factors may be shown but do not affect the published score until their applicability is established.

Methodology

How the franchise scores are calculated

01

Assess city conditions

We reviewed local measures that could affect franchise operations and recorded their sources, geographic scope and evidence quality.

02

Model the operating assumptions

We mapped each franchise's operating model to the local conditions that could materially affect it.

03

Apply modeled effects

Apply modeled effects at full or reduced provisional weight.

04

Highlight candidate-dependent effects

Keep candidate-specific effects outside the baseline score.

05

Test rank sensitivity

Remove one factor category at a time from every franchise and rerun scoring.

06

Generate output

Generate the data displayed on this page.

How we start out from a baseline

Every franchise starts at 70.00 points. Score differences come from modeled relationships. In Nashua, FASTSIGNS reached 70.269. Population density and renter-occupied housing share together produced +0.32 points within customer demand. [1] [2] Referral channels totaled +0.15 points, led by local hospitals and colleges (institutional-density proxy) at +0.15 points. [29] [30] [31] [32] Local rules and operating requirements netted to -0.20 points after summing observed local relationships and a model-applied adjustment. [23]

Calculation controls

The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.

relationship_max_effect × city_condition_strength × operating_exposure × confidence_multiplier × provenance_multiplier × geographic_applicability × profile_effect_multiplier × eligibility_multiplier, followed by channel/modifier/correlation/family/factor/total controls

Score calibration

How relationship effects become score adjustments

Each factor starts with its maximum allowed effect. The city-specific weights and the franchise's attribute weighting determine the initial impact. Evidence confidence, provenance and other factors can impose multiplier effects. Fully supported factors are assigned full eligibility weight. Broadly applicable factors awaiting research or taxonomy review use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-specific factors remain outside the baseline score until the relevant choices are confirmed and the model is rerun. Correlation controls and score caps can reduce the final impact.

Local condition2,961.7 people per square mile [1] [2]Population densityStrength 0.550 / 1.000
Operating exposureNearby customer baseFASTSIGNS weighted operating exposureExposure 0.131 / 1.000
Model calibration+3.50 pts ceilingEvidence/applicability ×0.978 · pre-cap +0.25 ptsRelationship-specific maximum
Score effect+0.25 ptsNo post-calibration control reduced this relationshipSource
Worked-example calibration inputsActual model values, not generic point bands
City-condition strength0.550 / 1.000
Operating exposure0.131 / 1.000
Evidence & applicability×0.978
Relationship ceiling3.500 pts

The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.

How factor rows are classified

Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelCandidate considerationsNot included in the score

Model 0.10.0 · Compiler 0.35.47-evidence-surface-completion · Report generated October 7, 2026 (site timezone)

Model governance

How this report is calculated and corrected

Calculation controls

Model designer
Thomas Jepsen

No franchise score is manually raised or lowered after calculation.

Model history

Study updates are versioned and dated to show development and assumptions used in calculations.

Corrections policy

Corrections trigger a model rerun. Scores are updated. Some visuals may be updated less frequently.

Source registry

External sources linked

  1. 1
    U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Nashua city, New Hampshire

    Used for: Population estimate, Population change since 2020, Population density, Household count, and Owner-occupied housing share

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    2020-2025; ACS-style profile values primarily 2020-2024; economic receipts/sales 2022
    Scope
    Nashua city, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  2. 2
    U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States

    Used for: Population change since 2020, Population density, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, and Median owner-occupied home value

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    2020-2025; profile values primarily 2020-2024; economic receipts/sales 2022
    Scope
    United States
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  3. 3
    U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: New Hampshire
    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    2020-2025; profile values primarily 2020-2024; economic receipts/sales 2022
    Scope
    New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  4. 4
    Occupational Employment and Wages in Manchester-Nashua — May 2025
    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    June 5, 2026
    Data period
    May 2025
    Scope
    Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  5. 5
    Civilian labor force and unemployment by state and metropolitan area — July 2026
    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    September 2, 2026
    Data period
    July 2026
    Scope
    Manchester-Nashua, NH Metropolitan Statistical Area
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  6. 6
    The Employment Situation — July 2026
    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    August 7, 2026
    Data period
    July 2026
    Scope
    United States
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  7. 7
    County Employment and Wages in New Hampshire — Fourth Quarter 2025
    Publisher
    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
    Published
    June 12, 2026
    Data period
    Fourth quarter 2025
    Scope
    Hillsborough County, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  8. 8
    Airports
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Scope
    Nashua Municipal Airport / Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  9. 9
    CityBus
    Publisher
    City of Nashua / Nashua Transit System
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire and select Amherst locations
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  10. 10
    Tax Rate History
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Data period
    2025
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  11. 11
    Food Service Program
    Publisher
    City of Nashua Environmental Health Department
    Data period
    Current program page
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  12. 12
    Requirements for Opening a Food Service Establishment
    Publisher
    City of Nashua Environmental Health Department
    Data period
    Current requirements page
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  13. 13
    Permits
    Publisher
    City of Nashua Building Safety Department
    Data period
    Current permit page
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  14. 14
    Bids
    Publisher
    City of Nashua Purchasing Department
    Data period
    Current procurement page
    Scope
    City of Nashua procurement jurisdiction
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  15. 15
    Industrial Pretreatment FAQ
    Publisher
    City of Nashua Wastewater Department
    Data period
    Current program page
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  16. 16
    Waterways — Flood awareness
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Data period
    Current FEMA-map guidance
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  17. 17
    PWW Rate Sheet
    Publisher
    Pennichuck Water Works, Inc.
    Published
    January 28, 2025
    Data period
    Effective on bills rendered on or after March 1, 2025
    Scope
    Pennichuck Water Works service area
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  18. 18
    Registering a New Business
    Publisher
    New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration
    Data period
    Current registration guidance
    Scope
    New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  19. 19
    Business Taxes
    Publisher
    New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration
    Data period
    Current rates applying to stated taxable periods
    Scope
    New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  20. 20
    RSA 279:21 Minimum Hourly Rate
    Publisher
    New Hampshire General Court
    Data period
    Current statute
    Scope
    New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  21. 21
    State Minimum Wage Laws
    Publisher
    U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Updated July 1, 2026
    Scope
    New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 5, 2026
  22. 22
    Historic District Commission
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Scope
    Nashua Historic District
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  23. 23
    Ordinance O-21-045 — Building Construction Fee Schedule
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Published
    June 22, 2021
    Data period
    Current fee schedule linked by City permit page as accessed 2026-09-09
    Scope
    Nashua, New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  24. 24
    Information for Bidders
    Publisher
    City of Nashua Purchasing Department
    Scope
    City of Nashua procurement jurisdiction
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  25. 25
    West Pearl Street Streetscaping — Bid 0148-051226
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Published
    April 17, 2026
    Data period
    2026 project procurement
    Scope
    West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  26. 26
    West Pearl Street Streetscape — Addendum No. 1
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Data period
    2026-2027 contract schedule
    Scope
    West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  27. 27
    Bid Results — West Pearl Street Streetscaping
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Data period
    2026 award results
    Scope
    West Pearl Street streetscape corridor
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  28. 28
    Ordinance O-21-058 — Floodplain Management Land Use Ordinances
    Publisher
    City of Nashua
    Published
    May 11, 2021
    Data period
    Current codified floodplain requirements verified 2026-09-09
    Scope
    Nashua Special Flood Hazard Areas (Zones A, AE and AO)
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  29. 29
    Southern New Hampshire Medical Center
    Publisher
    Southern New Hampshire Health
    Scope
    Southern New Hampshire Medical Center campus
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  30. 30
    About Us — St. Joseph Hospital
    Publisher
    St. Joseph Hospital
    Scope
    St. Joseph Hospital campus
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  31. 31
    Facts & Statistics
    Publisher
    Rivier University
    Data period
    September 2025 student population
    Scope
    Rivier University campus
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  32. 32
    NCC At A Glance
    Publisher
    Nashua Community College
    Data period
    Fall 2024
    Scope
    Nashua Community College campus
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  33. 33
    Local REALTOR Boards
    Publisher
    New Hampshire REALTORS
    Data period
    2026 board roster
    Scope
    Greater Manchester/Nashua REALTOR board jurisdiction
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026
  34. 34
    Contractors — Business Directory
    Publisher
    New Hampshire Home Builders Association
    Data period
    Current directory accessed 2026-09-09
    Scope
    New Hampshire
    Accessed
    September 9, 2026

Apply the analysis to your situation

Review your franchising goals with a team member.

Request a private franchise review
View methodologyView source registry
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 fees from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.

pipelinefranchises.com

Recently updated pages: Fargo Gulfport Aurora Santa Ana Minneapolis Spokane San Diego Dayton New Orleans Knoxville

Twenty Twenty-Five

Take Free Franchise Match Quiz