69.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
We ranked 14 franchise concepts for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania using local demand, labor, transportation, real estate, regulation, and source-backed evidence.
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
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
1.3 points average among 10 affected concepts
1.1 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Our Philadelphia, Pennsylvania analysis favored concepts whose operating requirements matched the city’s strongest service-demand conditions without depending too heavily on inexpensive labor, easy routing, or low-cost commercial space. City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Jan-Pro International produced the three highest modeled alignment scores in the evaluated set. Target-market demand was the strongest positive factor: it materially affected 10 concepts and added 1.3 points on average among them. Labor and staffing friction was the broadest negative pressure, reducing the 10 exposed concepts by 1.1 points on average. The result is not that the highest-ranked brand is universally better. It means that, under the documented city assumptions and the operating profiles available to us, its local advantages outweighed its modeled constraints more effectively. Territory boundaries, candidate capabilities, capital structure, franchise economics, current FDD disclosures, and local franchisee validation remain outside this ranking and can materially change the decision.
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.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility management | 73.2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coaching | 72.6Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning | 72.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjusting | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Workout AnytimeFitness | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Rainbow International RestorationRestoration | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | PuroCleanRestoration | 69.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
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.
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 | +2.6 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +2.3 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +2.4 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.5 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +1.4 pts | — | -0.7 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.3 pts | -0.3 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #8 Workout Anytime | — | — | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #9 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.6 pts | -0.8 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #10 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -0.8 pts | -1.1 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #11 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +1.1 pts | -1.9 pts | -1.1 pts | — |
| #12 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.8 pts | -1.7 pts | -1.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +1.1 pts | -1.9 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #14 Mr. Rooter | +0.4 pts | +0.8 pts | -1.8 pts | -1.3 pts | +0.1 pts |
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.
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
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 | +2.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 73.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International 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 FASTSIGNS, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Workout Anytime; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
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.
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #4 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #14 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #11 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts challenged most
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #8 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts challenged most
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #6 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
- 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
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.1 to 69.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.3. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 1 point 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
- 69.1–69.3
- Category average
- 69.2
Compare all assessed concepts
Explore the complete score calculations
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see how each factor was treated and the single next check most capable of changing the result.
City Wide
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 73.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 73.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for City Wide to support its local contract pipeline?
ActionCOACH
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.6 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#2
Most important next check
Which business-owner segments are expected to produce the most repeatable coaching demand for ActionCOACH?
Jan-Pro International
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| 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 | 72.01 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
Most important next check
What concentration of recurring commercial accounts is required for Jan-Pro International to build an efficient local book of business?
FASTSIGNS
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
Most important next check
Which local customer verticals are expected to generate repeat signage and graphics work for FASTSIGNS?
HomeSmiles
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +1.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for HomeSmiles to support its local contract pipeline?
Tiger Adjusters
Rank sensitivity: Stable
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.96 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#7
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Tiger Adjusters's practical service territory?
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.93 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
Most important next check
Which transaction corridors and referral markets would define Pillar To Post Home Inspectors's practical inspection territory?
Workout Anytime
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 69.87 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
Most important next check
What trade-area boundary and population base would Workout Anytime use to evaluate the proposed location?
Rainbow International Restoration
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.26 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes can Rainbow International Restoration serve within its target emergency-response time under normal and peak traffic conditions?
PuroClean
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 69.05 |
| 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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
Most important next check
What dispatch zones and maximum drive-time assumptions does PuroClean use for urgent service calls?
Aire Serv
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +1.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | Not applicable to this operating model |
| 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 | 68.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
Most important next check
What daily vehicle utilization and travel-time allowance are built into Aire Serv's operating plan?
ZOOM DRAIN
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
Most important next check
Where must ZOOM DRAIN stage crews and vehicles to protect after-hours response times across the proposed territory?
Mister Sparky Electric
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
How we scored this concept
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| 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 | 68.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
Most important next check
Which licensed roles must Mister Sparky Electric hire or contract locally, and what recruiting timeline is built into the opening plan?
Mr. Rooter
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
How we scored this concept
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 | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| 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 | 68.27 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
Most important next check
How many field vehicles must Mr. Rooter deploy, and where would they begin and end each service day?
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Metric registry
The 23 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry exposes the raw value, period, geography, factor mapping, and source for every public metric used in the city research.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | How used | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 1,574,281people | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 household characteristics | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [3] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -1.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate and 2020-2024 household characteristics | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Evidence for Target-market demand | [3] |
| Households in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate | 702,646households | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [5] |
| Employer and nonemployer establishment base | employer establishments: 29,460; nonemployer establishments: 127,494; employer jobs: 699,212establishments and jobs | 2023 employer and nonemployer establishment statistics; 2022 sector receipts | Philadelphia County, coterminous with Philadelphia city | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Sales and customer acquisition, Competitive environment | [4] |
| Citywide activity-license requirement and searchable commercial-license records | requirement: All businesses operating in the city must register for an Activity License or obtain a Commercial Activity License; open record fields include: license number, issue date, status, company name, legal entity typeregulatory framework | Current licensing rules accessed July 2026 | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Evidence for Target-market demand, Competitive environment, Regulatory and operating friction | [7] [8] |
| Total housing units in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate | 763,527housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality | [5] [6] |
| Median year housing structures were built | 1,949year | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania housing stock | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Labor and staffing friction | [5] [6] |
| Housing units built in 1939 or earlier | 40percent of housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania housing stock | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Labor and staffing friction | [5] |
| Housing structure and tenure mix | single unit share: 62.74; multi unit share: 36.73; owner occupied share: 51.87; renter occupied share: 48.13percent | 2024 ACS estimates | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania housing stock | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Target-market demand, Territory quality | [6] |
| Share of the city served by the combined sewer system and wet-weather overflow condition | combined sewer service share: 60; annual overflow description: billions of gallons of stormwater and diluted sewage flow to local waterways during wet weatherpercent and directional volume | Program status and system description current through July 2026 | Philadelphia combined-sewer area | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality, Regulatory and operating friction | [9] [1] |
| Selected metropolitan frontline occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with the United States | food preparation and serving: philadelphia msa: 18.11, united states: 17.86; building and grounds cleaning: philadelphia msa: 20.13, united states: 19.66; office and administrative support: philadelphia msa: 25.59, united states: 24.79; transportation and material moving: philadelphia msa: 23.43, united states: 23.96usd per hour mean | May 2025 | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [10] |
| Metropolitan skilled-trade occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with the United States | construction and extraction: philadelphia msa: 34.78, united states: 31.42, local premium percent: 10.69; installation maintenance and repair: philadelphia msa: 31.67, united states: 30.44, local premium percent: 4.04usd per hour mean and percent | May 2025 | Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [10] |
| Annual hours lost to traffic congestion per driver in 2025 | 101hours per driver per year | Calendar year 2025 | Philadelphia | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [11] [1] |
| Smart-loading-zone fee, grace period, duration limit, and listed corridors | fee usd per minute: 0.1; unpaid grace period minutes: 3; maximum duration minutes: 60; listed corridors: Walnut Street between 12th and 20th Streets, Sansom Street segments between 12th and 19th Streets, Chestnut Street between 12th and 20th Streetsfee time and locations | Current code effective June 25, 2026 | Enumerated Center City smart-loading zones | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality, Regulatory and operating friction | [12] |
| Current Center City employment, office, and development conditions | office leasing change 2025: 10; office vacancy rate: 20.4; active development pipeline usd: 2,140,000,000; residential units completed or underway: 8,240percent and counts | Primarily 2025 and early 2026 | Greater Center City, Philadelphia | Evidence for Target-market demand, Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [13] [1] |
| Share of city employment concentrated in Center City and University City relative to land area | city employment share: 53; city land share: 8percent | Primarily 2025 and early 2026 | Center City and University City | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Territory quality, Transportation, routing, and parking | [13] |
| Current regional office and industrial market direction | regional industrial net absorption sqft: 1,600,000; industrial positive absorption quarters: 3; regional vacancy change basis points: -10; cbd contiguous blocks over 100000 sqft available: 1square feet counts and basis points | Second quarter 2026 | Philadelphia CBD and regional industrial market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [16] |
| University City employment concentration and pay distribution | jobs: 84,000; share of city jobs minimum: 11; share of city land maximum: 2; jobs paying over 40000 share approximate: 80jobs and percent | 2025 employment and development conditions reported for the 2026 district publication | University City, Philadelphia | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Sales and customer acquisition, Labor and staffing friction, Territory quality | [15] |
| University City development activity and current project pipeline | ongoing projects: 40; square feet delivered in 2025: 1,400,000; reported 2025 delivered value usd: 790,000,000; reported total real estate value usd: 12,000,000,000projects square feet and usd | 2025 and current 2026 project pipeline | University City, Philadelphia | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Sales and customer acquisition, Real estate and site feasibility | [14] [15] |
| Large-building energy reporting and performance-program scale | buildings reporting energy and water minimum: 1,450; benchmarking compliance rate: 68.8; bepp compliance rate: 38buildings and percent | 2019-2022 program results reported in 2024 | Large buildings in Philadelphia | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Property replacement-cycle demand | [19] |
| Building Energy Performance Program coverage, cycle, deadlines, and noncompliance fines | minimum nonresidential floor area sqft: 50,000; compliance cycle years: 5; deadline 2026 minimum sqft exclusive: 200,000; deadline 2027 minimum sqft: 100,000; initial fine usd: 2,000; daily fine after first 30 days usd: 500square feet years and usd | Current program rules accessed July 2026 | Qualifying nonresidential buildings in Philadelphia | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Property replacement-cycle demand | [17] [18] |
| Development Impact Tax rate, residential scope, threshold, and payment timing | rate percent: 1; minimum project cost usd exclusive: 15,000; permit payment share percent: 50; final inspection payment share percent: 50; scope: Residential new construction, eligible residential improvements, and residential portions of mixed-use projectspercent usd and scope | Current rules accessed July 2026 | Qualifying residential construction in Philadelphia | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Regulatory and operating friction | [20] [2] |
| Combined city and Commonwealth Realty Transfer Tax rate | city rate percent: 3.578; commonwealth rate percent: 1; combined rate percent: 4.578; effective date: 2025-07-01percent | Rate effective July 1, 2025 and current in July 2026 | Real estate located in Philadelphia, subject to statutory exemptions | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Regulatory and operating friction | [21] [2] |
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.
Why every concept begins at 70.0
70.0 is a neutral display baseline shared by every concept. Local conditions can move a score by no more than 18.0 points in either direction under the current model. It 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
How factor rows are classified
“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 4, 2026Added conditional scoring gates, factor-status transparency, rank-sensitivity testing, metric registry output, and factor-impact visualization data.
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: Share of the city served by the combined sewer system and wet-weather overflow condition, Annual hours lost to traffic congestion per driver in 2025, and Current Center City employment, office, and development conditions
- 2Structural Constraints and Hidden Municipal Costs: A Forensic Audit of Ten U.S. JurisdictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Development Impact Tax rate, residential scope, threshold, and payment timing and Combined city and Commonwealth Realty Transfer Tax rate
- 3QuickFacts: Philadelphia city, Pennsylvania
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 and Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025
- 4QuickFacts: Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
Used for: Employer and nonemployer establishment base
- 52024 ACS 1-Year Selected Housing Characteristics for Philadelphia city
Used for: Households in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate, Total housing units in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate, Median year housing structures were built, and Housing units built in 1939 or earlier
- 7Business licenses
Used for: Citywide activity-license requirement and searchable commercial-license records
- 8L&I Commercial Activity Licenses
Used for: Citywide activity-license requirement and searchable commercial-license records
- 9Green City, Clean Waters
Used for: Share of the city served by the combined sewer system and wet-weather overflow condition
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington — May 2025
Used for: Selected metropolitan frontline occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with the United States and Metropolitan skilled-trade occupational-group mean hourly wages compared with the United States
- 11INRIX 2025 Global Traffic Scorecard: U.S. results
Used for: Annual hours lost to traffic congestion per driver in 2025
- 12Philadelphia Code § 12-923: Smart Loading Zones
Used for: Smart-loading-zone fee, grace period, duration limit, and listed corridors
- 13State of Center City 2026: Strong Footing, More Steps to Take
Used for: Current Center City employment, office, and development conditions and Share of city employment concentrated in Center City and University City relative to land area
- 14The State of University City 2026
Used for: University City development activity and current project pipeline
- 15University City District’s Board Unanimously Approves Sarah Steltz as President & CEO
Used for: University City employment concentration and pay distribution and University City development activity and current project pipeline
- 16Philadelphia MarketBeat Reports — Q2 2026
Used for: Current regional office and industrial market direction
- 17Building Energy Performance Program
Used for: Building Energy Performance Program coverage, cycle, deadlines, and noncompliance fines
- 18Building Energy Performance Program compliance deadlines
Used for: Building Energy Performance Program coverage, cycle, deadlines, and noncompliance fines
- 19City releases update on Building Energy Programs and interactive data tool
Used for: Large-building energy reporting and performance-program scale
- 20Development Impact Tax
Used for: Development Impact Tax rate, residential scope, threshold, and payment timing
- 21Realty Transfer Tax
Used for: Combined city and Commonwealth Realty Transfer Tax rate
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.
