69.3 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
16Sources used
10Primary sources
25Local 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 point average among 11 affected concepts
0.9 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.1 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. 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 | 73.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsReferral ecosystem | -1.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Large and growing resident, household, employment, and sector base supports broad local business demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period: 280,065 households. [4]
Large pre-1980 housing cohort supports repair and replacement demand while increasing system and diagnostic complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5]
Large municipal footprint and dispersed urban form increase route-planning and windshield-time exposure for field operations
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Municipal land area and population density: land area square miles: 606.2; population per square mile: 1,123.5 square miles and people per square mile. [4] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large and growing resident, household, employment, and sector base supports broad local business demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Rising housing costs and material cost burden constrain discretionary spending for affected households1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Large pre-1980 housing cohort supports repair and replacement demand while increasing system and diagnostic complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Housing estimated to be in serious need of repair: estimated share of housing units: 9; earlier plan reference to population share: 7 percent [5]
- Owner- and renter-occupied units built before 1980: owner occupied share: 47; renter occupied share: 56 percent [5]
- Housing units built before 1979: housing units: 144,332; share: 53 units and percent [5] [1]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large municipal footprint and dispersed urban form increase route-planning and windshield-time exposure for field operations1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
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 alignment73.0
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +3.00 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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.43 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 | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 72.43 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.85 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 | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.64 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.64 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.36 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 | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| 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 | 71.36 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.53 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Target-market demand
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.58 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.42 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.59 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.41 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.79 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.21 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.93 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| 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 | 69.07 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.08 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.92 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.29 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.29 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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.71 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 73.00 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.0 |
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, 10 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #8 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.0 pts
Average across all concepts+0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025719,849 people
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20255.7 percent
- Households In The 2020 2024 Acs Period280,065 households
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.0 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.2 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.4 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. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #7 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank4
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.3 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #9 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected-0.3 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.2 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #8 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Municipal Land Area And Population Densityland area square miles: 606.2; population per square mile: 1,123.5 square miles and people per square mile
- Mean Travel Time To Work22.2 minutes
- Industrial And Flex Inventory Up To 30,000 Square Feet In Q2 2026asking rent usd per square foot per year: 9.1; vacancy rate: 6.5; existing buildings: 6,166; twelve month net absorption square feet: -230,000 usd per square foot per year percent buildings and square feet
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.4 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. PuroClean moved from #10 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Selected City Economic Receipts And Sales In 2022retail sales usd: 19,578,248,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 11,421,562,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 6,233,534,000; accommodation and food services sales usd: 2,451,641,000
- Selected Metropolitan Employment Sectors In June 2026education and health services jobs: 127,800; government jobs: 127,200; trade transportation and utilities jobs: 125,800; professional and business services jobs: 91,700; leisure and hospitality jobs: 80,300; construction jobs: 36,600; manufacturing jobs: 34,700; mining and logging jobs: 10,200
- City Vendor Registration And Competitive Quote Processopen market purchase competitive quote threshold usd: 5,000; registered vendor list available to departments and trusts: yes; all formal bids and rfps use bidnet direct: yes usd and process flags
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#1
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #2–#2
#3 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#5 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#8 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#9 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#10 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #6–#14
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#13 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [7] [9] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [13] [14] [16] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [9] [8] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [5] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [4] [8] [1]Real estate and site feasibility: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [4] [6] [15] [3]Referral ecosystem: [6] [4] [15] [3]Territory quality: [4] [7] [8] [9] [10] [3] [1]Regulatory and operating friction: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [16] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.3 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.8 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.9 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +2.1 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #4 Jan-Pro International | +2.0 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts | +0.2 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.2 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts | — |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.1 pts | -0.8 pts | — |
| #8 Workout Anytime | -0.4 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts | — |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.2 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #11 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts | -1.8 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #12 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts | -1.4 pts | — |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.4 pts | -1.6 pts | — |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | -1.2 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to transportation, routing, and parking. 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 Tiger Adjusters, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Workout Anytime; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.3Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.2 to 69.4. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.4. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 1.3 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.2–69.4
- Category average
- 69.3
Rainbow International Restoration69.4
PuroClean69.2
Metric registry
The 25 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 | 719,849people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data; 2020 land area and density | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 5.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data; 2020 land area and density | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period | 280,065households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data; 2020 land area and density | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Households added from 2019 through 2022 | 27,000households approximate | Primarily 2020-2023 ACS, CHAS, and the 2021 Housing Affordability Study, with 2025 planning conclusions | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Selected city economic receipts and sales in 2022 | retail sales usd: 19,578,248,000; health care and social assistance receipts usd: 11,421,562,000; transportation and warehousing receipts usd: 6,233,534,000; accommodation and food services sales usd: 2,451,641,000usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data; 2020 land area and density | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 710,900jobs | Employment through June 2026; wages May 2025; county wages fourth quarter 2025 | Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Selected metropolitan employment sectors in June 2026 | education and health services jobs: 127,800; government jobs: 127,200; trade transportation and utilities jobs: 125,800; professional and business services jobs: 91,700; leisure and hospitality jobs: 80,300; construction jobs: 36,600; manufacturing jobs: 34,700; mining and logging jobs: 10,200jobs | Employment through June 2026; wages May 2025; county wages fourth quarter 2025 | Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Occupied housing units paying more than 30 percent of income on housing costs | occupied units: 81,047; share: 30.42units and percent | Primarily 2020-2023 ACS, CHAS, and the 2021 Housing Affordability Study, with 2025 planning conclusions | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units built before 1979 | housing units: 144,332; share: 53units and percent | Primarily 2020-2023 ACS, CHAS, and the 2021 Housing Affordability Study, with 2025 planning conclusions | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Supports modeled relationship | [5] [1] |
| Housing estimated to be in serious need of repair | estimated share of housing units: 9; earlier plan reference to population share: 7percent | Primarily 2020-2023 ACS, CHAS, and the 2021 Housing Affordability Study, with 2025 planning conclusions | Oklahoma City, especially central south and northeast areas | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Owner- and renter-occupied units built before 1980 | owner occupied share: 47; renter occupied share: 56percent | Primarily 2020-2023 ACS, CHAS, and the 2021 Housing Affordability Study, with 2025 planning conclusions | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Municipal land area and population density | land area square miles: 606.2; population per square mile: 1,123.5square miles and people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data; 2020 land area and density | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] [1] |
| Mean travel time to work | 22.2minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data; 2020 land area and density | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Used in scoring | [4] [1] |
| Oklahoma City office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | overall vacancy rate: 29; asking rent usd per square foot full service: 20.25; ytd net absorption square feet: -250,318percent usd per square foot and square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Oklahoma City general office product above 5,000 square feet | Context only | [7] [1] |
| Office vacancy variation among listed submarkets in Q2 2026 | minimum vacancy rate: 22.6; minimum submarket: North; maximum vacancy rate: 36.6; maximum submarket: Northwest; cbd vacancy rate: 25.9; midtown vacancy rate: 29.3; west central vacancy rate: 27.9percent | Second quarter 2026 | Listed Oklahoma City-area office submarkets | Conditional relationship | [7] |
| Overall Oklahoma City retail market conditions in Q2 2026 | inventory square feet: 100,857,751; vacancy rate: 5.8; asking rent usd per square foot per year: 16.65; under construction square feet: 703,204square feet percent and usd per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Oklahoma City retail market | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Class A and new-construction retail pricing in Q2 2026 | class a rent usd per square foot per year nnn: 25.69; class a vacancy rate: 3.5; new construction rent range description: rates in the USD 40s per square footusd per square foot per year and percent | Second quarter 2026 | Oklahoma City Class A and new-construction retail | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| Industrial and flex inventory up to 30,000 square feet in Q2 2026 | asking rent usd per square foot per year: 9.1; vacancy rate: 6.5; existing buildings: 6,166; twelve month net absorption square feet: -230,000usd per square foot per year percent buildings and square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Broader Oklahoma City industrial and flex inventory up to 30,000 square feet | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Industrial rent and vacancy range among core submarkets in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate minimum: 4.5; vacancy rate maximum: 5.4; rent minimum usd per square foot per year: 7.34; rent maximum usd per square foot per year: 9.52percent and usd per square foot per year | Second quarter 2026 | Core Oklahoma City industrial submarkets plus Edmond/North OKC and Moore/Norman | Conditional relationship | [8] |
| Selected Oklahoma City-area and U.S. average hourly wages in May 2025 | all occupations: oklahoma city: 29, united states: 33.54; logisticians: oklahoma city: 44.74, united states: 43.14; aircraft mechanics and service technicians: oklahoma city: 33.8, united states: 40.74; sheet metal workers: oklahoma city: 31.23, united states: 32.62; order clerks: oklahoma city: 22.13, united states: 23.19; laborers and freight stock material movers hand: oklahoma city: 18.48, united states: 20.32; fast food and counter workers: oklahoma city: 12.17, united states: 15.46usd per hour | Employment through June 2026; wages May 2025; county wages fourth quarter 2025 | Oklahoma City, OK Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [6] [1] |
| City vendor-registration and competitive-quote process | open market purchase competitive quote threshold usd: 5,000; registered vendor list available to departments and trusts: yes; all formal bids and rfps use bidnet direct: yesusd and process flags | Current vendor and bid process accessed August 2026 | City of Oklahoma City departments and trusts | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Design-district review timing and post-approval appeal period | review duration description: a few weeks to months depending on information needs and meeting dates; mandatory appeal period business days: 10process description and business days | Current process accessed August 2026 | Oklahoma City design and historic districts | Conditional relationship | [10] [2] [3] |
| Projects and signage reviewed in downtown design districts | covered actions: new construction, additions, exterior modifications, site modifications, signage, demolition requests; certificate of approval may be required: yesrequirements | Current district guidance accessed August 2026 | DBD, DTD-1, DTD-2, and Bricktown Urban Design District | Conditional relationship | [11] [12] [2] |
| Re-roofing permit threshold for one- and two-family dwellings | effective date: 2025-08-01; scope threshold square feet: 500; covered property types: single-family dwelling, two-family dwelling, duplexdate square feet and property types | Requirement effective August 1, 2025 | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Context only | [13] [14] |
| Natural hazards identified in Oklahoma City's hazard-mitigation framework | extreme heat, flooding, hail, high winds, lightning, tornadoes, winter weather, drought, additional values omittedhazard categories | Hazard framework in the City's sustainability and hazard-mitigation planning | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma | Context only | [16] [1] |
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 73.00 after target-market demand +2.3 pts, referral ecosystem +0.8 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Housing units built before 1979, Municipal land area and population density, Mean travel time to work, Oklahoma City office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026, and Selected Oklahoma City-area and U.S. average hourly wages in May 2025
- 2Forensic Audit Report: Structural Capital Constraints and Jurisdictional Risk ProfilesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Design-district review timing and post-approval appeal period and Projects and signage reviewed in downtown design districts
- 3Franchise data - remake - Combine2Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Design-district review timing and post-approval appeal period
- 4QuickFacts: Oklahoma City city, Oklahoma
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 ACS period, Selected city economic receipts and sales in 2022, and Municipal land area and population density
- 52025-2029 Consolidated Plan and First Year Action Plan
Used for: Households added from 2019 through 2022, Occupied housing units paying more than 30 percent of income on housing costs, Housing units built before 1979, Housing estimated to be in serious need of repair, and Owner- and renter-occupied units built before 1980
- 6Oklahoma City Area Economic Summary
Used for: Total nonfarm employment in June 2026, Selected metropolitan employment sectors in June 2026, and Selected Oklahoma City-area and U.S. average hourly wages in May 2025
- 7Oklahoma City Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Oklahoma City office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 and Office vacancy variation among listed submarkets in Q2 2026
- 8Oklahoma City Industrial Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Industrial and flex inventory up to 30,000 square feet in Q2 2026 and Industrial rent and vacancy range among core submarkets in Q2 2026
- 9Oklahoma City Retail Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Overall Oklahoma City retail market conditions in Q2 2026 and Class A and new-construction retail pricing in Q2 2026
- 10Design Review Process
Used for: Design-district review timing and post-approval appeal period
- 11Downtown Design District
Used for: Projects and signage reviewed in downtown design districts
- 12Sign Permits
Used for: Projects and signage reviewed in downtown design districts
- 13Roofing permits required in OKC starting Aug. 1
Used for: Re-roofing permit threshold for one- and two-family dwellings
- 14Development Center
Used for: Re-roofing permit threshold for one- and two-family dwellings
- 15How to Do Business with the City of Oklahoma City
Used for: City vendor-registration and competitive-quote process
- 16adaptokc: Introduction and Process
Used for: Natural hazards identified in Oklahoma City's hazard-mitigation framework
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.