69.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Oakland, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Oakland, California. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
30Sources used
23Primary sources
30Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.4 points average among 11 affected concepts
1.2 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Oakland, California
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.1 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1 point on average. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 73.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +3.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Oakland, California
Large city employment and employer base supports local business-account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Oakland employer and employee base in 2023: employers minimum: 23,000; employees: 192,744 employers and employees. [5] [4]
Metropolitan skilled-trade wages materially exceed national levels for relevant trade groups
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Construction employment located in Oakland in 2023: 8,124 jobs. [5] [10]
80.4 percent of Oakland housing units were constructed before 1980 in the ACS 2015-2019 housing-stock data used by the City
The age profile supports a large base for repair, replacement, restoration, inspection, and modernization, but it does not establish that every property retains original systems. Oakland also has property-specific seismic conditions: the soft-story ordinance applies only to defined covered residential buildings, and liquefaction or active-fault requirements depend on mapped site conditions. Old-stock demand should therefore be separated from site-specific structural and regulatory diligence. [6] [1] [7] [8] [27] [29]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large city employment and employer base supports local business-account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
City wage floor and metropolitan frontline wage levels create labor-cost pressure for hourly operating models1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Metropolitan skilled-trade wages materially exceed national levels for relevant trade groups1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment73.3
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.7 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.12 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 pts | |
| Net local movement | +2.02 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +3.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.0 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.66 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.66 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#12
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.57 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.81 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.9 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.89 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.11 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.95 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.05 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.95 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.12 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.4 pts
Average across all concepts+1.1 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025440,838 people
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Period176,584 households
- Oakland Employer And Employee Base In 2023employers minimum: 23,000; employees: 192,744 employers and employees
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+3.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #8 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program Scope And Subject Building Criteriaeffective date: 2019-01-22; minimum dwelling units: 5; construction cutoff: before 1991 or 1985 or earlier ubc design; structural condition: wood frame target story or defined vulnerable soft story condition; subject property list reference: May 2026 regulatory scope
- Housing Units Constructed Before 198080.4 percent of housing units
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #7 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-1.2 pts
Average across all concepts-1.1 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Construction Employment Located In Oakland In 20238,124 jobs
- Oakland Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202617.34 usd per hour
- Selected Frontline And Administrative Mean Hourly Wages In The San Francisco Oakland Fremont Msafood preparation and serving: 22.91; healthcare support: 21.79; office and administrative support: 32.96; all occupations: 48.19; united states all occupations: 33.54 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#6 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#12
#7 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#13
#8 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #6–#9
#9 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#14
#12 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [21] [20] [22] [23] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [7] [8] [26] [27] [28] [1]Competitive environment: [5] [12] [22] [23] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [9] [10] [11] [5] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [16] [13] [24] [25] [1] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [20] [21] [22] [3]Referral ecosystem: [5] [20] [21] [3]Territory quality: [17] [22] [23] [18] [12] [27] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [24] [25] [7] [8] [29] [30] [15] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.7 pts | — | -0.3 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +2.6 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | — | — |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +3.0 pts | — | -1.6 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.8 pts | — | -1.1 pts |
| #6 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.7 pts | -1.5 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.7 pts | -1.6 pts |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +0.6 pts | -1.8 pts |
| #11 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.9 pts |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts | -1.6 pts |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.5 pts | -1.6 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.6 pts | -1.7 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Oakland, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Oakland, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 68.9 to 69.0. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.0. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 1.6 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 68.9–69.0
- Category average
- 69.0
Rainbow International Restoration69.0
PuroClean68.9
Metric registry
The 30 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 440,838people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing characteristics | Oakland, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing characteristics | Oakland, California | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 176,584households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived household and housing characteristics | Oakland, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Oakland employer and employee base in 2023 | employers minimum: 23,000; employees: 192,744employers and employees | Plan period 2025-2029; employer and employment-sector data for 2023 | Oakland, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Health Care and Social Assistance employment located in Oakland in 2023 | 44,029jobs | Plan period 2025-2029; employer and employment-sector data for 2023 | Oakland, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Transportation and Warehousing employment located in Oakland in 2023 | 20,015jobs | Plan period 2025-2029; employer and employment-sector data for 2023 | Oakland, California | Context only | [5] |
| Construction employment located in Oakland in 2023 | 8,124jobs | Plan period 2025-2029; employer and employment-sector data for 2023 | Oakland, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units constructed before 1980 | 80.4percent of housing units | Housing stock characteristics primarily based on ACS 2015-2019 / ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook | Oakland, California housing stock | Used in scoring | [6] [1] |
| Mandatory soft-story retrofit program scope and subject-building criteria | effective date: 2019-01-22; minimum dwelling units: 5; construction cutoff: before 1991 or 1985 or earlier ubc design; structural condition: wood frame target story or defined vulnerable soft story condition; subject property list reference: May 2026regulatory scope | Current program requirements accessed August 2026; subject-property list current as of May 2026 | Defined Oakland residential soft-story buildings | Used in scoring | [7] [8] [1] |
| Oakland minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 17.34usd per hour | Effective January 1, 2026 | Work performed within Oakland for at least two hours in a workweek | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Selected frontline and administrative mean hourly wages in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA | food preparation and serving: 22.91; healthcare support: 21.79; office and administrative support: 32.96; all occupations: 48.19; united states all occupations: 33.54usd per hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Selected skilled-trade mean hourly wages in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA compared with the United States | construction and extraction msa: 43.66; construction and extraction us: 31.42; installation maintenance repair msa: 38.95; installation maintenance repair us: 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA MSA | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Alameda County unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.4percent | June 2026, preliminary, not seasonally adjusted | Alameda County, California | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Oakland industrial submarket statistics in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 33,389,110; vacant sqft: 2,693,175; vacancy rate percent: 8.1; current quarter net absorption sqft: 68,864; ytd net absorption sqft: -330,166; under construction sqft: 176,889; weighted average net asking rent monthly psf: 1.18mixed industrial market metrics | Second quarter 2026 | Oakland industrial submarket | Context only | [12] |
| East Bay Oakland industrial vacancies in the 25,000-50,000 square-foot segment increased year over year | prior year spaces: 68; current spaces: 85; year over year change percent: 25available spaces and percent | Second quarter 2026 | East Bay Oakland industrial market | Context only | [12] |
| Current commercial loading-zone rule and automated-payment program status | commercial material loading max minutes: 30; yellow curb hours: 07:00-18:00; sunday and parking holiday yellow curb restriction: no; automated payment loading permit program status: suspended until further noticerule parameters | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Oakland yellow loading zones | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Heavy-duty commercial truck parking restrictions | covered vehicle thresholds: over 10000 pounds, over 22 feet in length; citywide residential district rule: truck parking prohibited; west oakland rule: truck parking prohibited except where signs specifically allow; unattached trailer rule: prohibited on city streets except while loading or unloadingrule parameters | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Oakland, with special West Oakland truck-parking rules | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Sunday parking occupancy varied materially across selected Oakland commercial districts and subdistricts | fruitvale percent: 106; grand lake lower percent: 88; grand lake upper percent: 43; montclair core percent: 90; montclair outer percent: 64; rockridge alcatraz to claremont percent: 110; rockridge claremont to chabot percent: 63; temescal percent: 68percent parking occupancy | Sunday occupancy study and 2026 metering implementation | Fruitvale, Grand Lake, Montclair, Rockridge, and Temescal | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Downtown demand-responsive parking meter rates starting in spring 2026 | premium rate usd per hour: 3.5; value rate usd per hour: 2.5usd per hour | Rates updated starting spring 2026 | Downtown Oakland premium and value zones | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Embarcadero West rail safety and access project current phasing | status: in progress; corridor length miles: 1; grant funding usd minimum: 300,000,000; 2026 scope: non capital safety improvements; 2027 2029 scope: railroad crossing and access upgradesproject scope | Current project status; 2026 non-capital improvements and 2027-2029 Phase 1 improvements | Embarcadero West between Port / West Oakland and Jack London waterfront interfaces | Conditional relationship | [19] [3] |
| Current signage permit and review requirements | zoning approval required for all signs: yes; building permit typically required for business signage: yes; minimum automatically allowed signage sqft per tenant: 20; maximum signage depends on: zoning, parcel frontage, sign type; design review exemptions available for qualifying signs: yesregulatory requirements | Current permit requirements accessed August 2026 | Oakland signs and business signage | Conditional relationship | [13] [14] [3] |
| Current nonresidential impact-fee rates and fee timing | effective date: 2025-09-13; calculation basis: per square foot; due at: certificate of occupancy; capital improvements usd per sqft: office: 2.7, freestanding retail: 0.68, ground floor retail: 0, industrial: 1.35, warehouse distribution: 1.35, hotel motel: 0.81, institutional: 4.05, mini storage: 0.28; transportation usd per sqft: office: 2.7, freestanding retail: 1.01, ground floor retail: 1.01, industrial: 0.75, warehouse distribution: 0.48, hotel motel: 0.88, institutional: 4.05, mini storage: 0.48; jobs housing usd per sqft: office or warehouse: 7.98; jobs housing size threshold sqft: 25,000usd per square foot and threshold | Current policy accessed August 2026; per-square-foot schedule effective September 13, 2025 | Oakland new, expanded, or qualifying changed nonresidential development | Context only | [24] [25] |
| Port of Oakland operating and commercial real-estate scale | seaport acres: 1,300; marine terminals: 4; ship to shore cranes: 25; annual teu: 2,070,000; commercial real estate acres: 837; commercial real estate tenants: 100; port employees 2026: 460mixed port scale metrics | Current quick facts including 2026 employees and present facility scale | Port of Oakland | Context only | [20] |
| Wilma Chan Highland Hospital Campus inpatient bed count and flagship status | inpatient beds: 236; health system role: flagship; regional trauma center: yesfacility profile | Current campus profile accessed August 2026 | Wilma Chan Highland Hospital Campus, Oakland | Used in scoring | [21] |
| Jack London Square ground-floor vacancy reported by the Port in late 2025 | 52percent of ground floor space | Jack London Square vacancy described in October-November 2025; SB 304 effective January 1, 2026 | Jack London Square, Oakland | Conditional relationship | [22] [1] |
| Jack London Square had both new business openings and announced closures in June 2026 | mixed transition with openings and closurescategorical | June 2026 | Jack London Square, Oakland | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| Oakland liquefaction sensitivity is highest in low-lying coastal areas and around Lake Merritt and its channel | highest sensitivity in low lying coastal and lake merritt channel areasmapped hazard category | Safety Element adopted September 26, 2023 | Oakland geologic hazard areas | Context only | [26] [27] [1] |
| Susceptible sandy artificial fill in the greater Oakland study area | 57square kilometers | Geologic study published 2010; modeled repeat M6.7-M7.0 Hayward Fault event | Greater Oakland area, not City of Oakland alone | Context only | [28] |
| Alquist-Priolo requirements for human-occupancy development in mapped active fault zones | structures over active fault prohibited: yes; general minimum distance feet: 50; geologic investigation required for covered projects: yesregulatory requirements | Current state law and implementation guidance accessed August 2026 | California Alquist-Priolo zones affecting applicable Oakland properties | Context only | [29] |
| Preliminary Alquist-Priolo fault-zone maps released for Oakland-area public review | release date: 2026-05-21; comment deadline: 2026-08-19; status: preliminary not finalregulatory status | Preliminary Alquist-Priolo fault-zone release with public comment through August 19, 2026 | Preliminary zones affecting Oakland and other Bay Area jurisdictions | Context only | [30] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 73.32 after target-market demand +3.7 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Supplied multi-city structural franchise research docket (I 102)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Housing units constructed before 1980, Mandatory soft-story retrofit program scope and subject-building criteria, Jack London Square ground-floor vacancy reported by the Port in late 2025, and Oakland liquefaction sensitivity is highest in low-lying coastal areas and around Lake Merritt and its channel
- 2Forensic Audit of Structural Constraints and Latent Jurisdictional RisksInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - aug(2).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Embarcadero West rail safety and access project current phasing and Current signage permit and review requirements
- 4QuickFacts: Oakland city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, and Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period
- 5City of Oakland Economic Development Action Plan 2025-2029
Used for: Oakland employer and employee base in 2023, Health Care and Social Assistance employment located in Oakland in 2023, Transportation and Warehousing employment located in Oakland in 2023, and Construction employment located in Oakland in 2023
- 6Appendix B: Housing Needs Assessment
Used for: Housing units constructed before 1980
- 7Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit Program
Used for: Mandatory soft-story retrofit program scope and subject-building criteria
- 8Oakland Ordinance No. 13516 C.M.S. - Mandatory Soft Story Retrofit
Used for: Mandatory soft-story retrofit program scope and subject-building criteria
- 9Oakland Minimum Wage Official Notice 2026
Used for: Oakland minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont — May 2025
Used for: Selected frontline and administrative mean hourly wages in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA and Selected skilled-trade mean hourly wages in the San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont MSA compared with the United States
- 11Monthly Labor Force Data for Counties — June 2026 Preliminary Data
Used for: Alameda County unemployment rate in June 2026
- 12East Bay Oakland Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Oakland industrial submarket statistics in Q2 2026 and East Bay Oakland industrial vacancies in the 25,000-50,000 square-foot segment increased year over year
- 13Sign Permits
Used for: Current signage permit and review requirements
- 14Planning Code - Title 17
Used for: Current signage permit and review requirements
- 15Apply for a Commercial Vehicle Loading Zone Permit
Used for: Current commercial loading-zone rule and automated-payment program status
- 16Truck Parking Rules
Used for: Heavy-duty commercial truck parking restrictions
- 17Sunday Parking Metering
Used for: Sunday parking occupancy varied materially across selected Oakland commercial districts and subdistricts
- 18Downtown Demand-Responsive Parking Meter Rates
Used for: Downtown demand-responsive parking meter rates starting in spring 2026
- 19Embarcadero West Rail Safety and Access Improvements
Used for: Embarcadero West rail safety and access project current phasing
- 20About the Port of Oakland
Used for: Port of Oakland operating and commercial real-estate scale
- 21Wilma Chan Highland Hospital Campus
Used for: Wilma Chan Highland Hospital Campus inpatient bed count and flagship status
- 22New Law Aims to Revive Oakland’s Jack London Square by Expanding Allowed Businesses
Used for: Jack London Square ground-floor vacancy reported by the Port in late 2025
- 23Oakland's Jack London Square in state of flux
Used for: Jack London Square had both new business openings and announced closures in June 2026
- 24Impact Fee Amounts
Used for: Current nonresidential impact-fee rates and fee timing
- 25Impact Fee Rates Effective September 13, 2025
Used for: Current nonresidential impact-fee rates and fee timing
- 26Safety Element
Used for: Oakland liquefaction sensitivity is highest in low-lying coastal areas and around Lake Merritt and its channel
- 27Safety Element Hazards Fact Sheet
Used for: Oakland liquefaction sensitivity is highest in low-lying coastal areas and around Lake Merritt and its channel
- 28Predicted liquefaction in the greater Oakland area and northern Santa Clara Valley during a repeat of the 1868 Hayward Fault earthquake
Used for: Susceptible sandy artificial fill in the greater Oakland study area
- 29Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones
Used for: Alquist-Priolo requirements for human-occupancy development in mapped active fault zones
- 30Preliminary Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation
Used for: Preliminary Alquist-Priolo fault-zone maps released for Oakland-area public review
Before contacting a franchisor
Complete the next layer of due diligence
- Confirm the exact protected territory and neighboring units.
- Review the current Franchise Disclosure Document.
- Validate local staffing, licensing, insurance, and service-base assumptions.
- Obtain location, vehicle, buildout, or working-capital estimates.
- Speak with current and former franchisees.
- Build a candidate-specific financial scenario.
Apply the analysis to your situation
Review how these market findings apply to your budget, role, and proposed territory.
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Disclaimer and broker disclosure: This analysis is informational and does not constitute financial, legal, accounting, or investment advice. Market-alignment scores do not predict financial performance or business success. Offers are made only through the delivery of a Franchise Disclosure Document. We may receive referral compensation from participating franchisors; compensation is not an input to the scoring model.