69.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Phoenix, Arizona
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Phoenix, Arizona. Household service 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
22Sources used
16Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.5 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Phoenix, Arizona
City Wide, HomeSmiles, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Household service demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 8 exposed concepts, adding 0.5 points on average. Route and curb productivity pressure was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.5 points on average. Workout Anytime was especially relationship-sensitive: removing fixed-location occupancy cost pressure moved it from #14 to #13 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Phoenix, Arizona
Population growth and continuing housing delivery support incremental household-service demand
This relationship affected 8 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Housing units built in 2020 or later: units: 13,327; share: 2 housing units and percent. [2] [1]
Large service geography and peak-period congestion constrain high-stop route capacity
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Land area: 518 square miles. [1]
Phoenix industrial vacancy was reported at 9.6 percent while retail vacancy was 4.5 percent in Q2 2026
Overall industrial availability does not establish that a franchise can obtain appropriately sized, zoned small-bay space with fleet parking, loading, and access. Retail space was materially tighter and industrial asking rents ranged widely across named submarkets. Facility feasibility therefore depends on format, size, parking, loading, urban-village location, and exact territory rather than the headline metro vacancy rate. [9] [11] [10] [12] [22]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Population growth and continuing housing delivery support incremental household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large health-care receipts and expanding bioscience institutions support addressable institutional service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Large service geography and peak-period congestion constrain high-stop route capacity1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Tight retail vacancy and rising asking rents increase fixed-location occupancy pressure1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal estate and site feasibility
Downtown university and bioscience institutions create concentrated professional referral networks1 modeled effect
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Large municipal geography, fifteen planning villages, and wide industrial rent dispersion increase territory-level variance1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality
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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality
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 |
| +0.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.17 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 | +0.8 |
| 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality
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 | +0.9 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.47 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 | +0.9 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.26 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.26 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.08 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
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 | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.08 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.8 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.9 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 |
| -0.9 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | 0.00 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
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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.8 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.00 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Territory quality
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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.03 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 | +0.6 |
| 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.97 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.27 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#8
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.39 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.2 |
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.61 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.1 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 |
| -1.1 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.43 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.57 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.0 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 |
| -1.0 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.48 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.52 |
| 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
- Adequate
- 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
- #6–#12
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.3 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.8 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.8 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.72 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.28 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.3 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.95 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.9
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.06 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 | +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 | -0.6 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.94 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.8
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.3 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.3 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -1.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | 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 | -1.3 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -1.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #13–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
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 effectMixed or model dependent
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #8 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Approved City Of Phoenix Investment In Asu Health At The Phoenix Bioscience Core50,000,000 usd
- Population Change From The April 2020 Estimate Base To July 20253.6 percent
- Health Care And Social Assistance Revenue21,532,515,000 usd 2022
Concepts helped most
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.9 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate57.3 percent of occupied housing units
- Housing Units Built From 1970 Through 1999units: 321,478; share: 49.23 housing units and percent
- Average Annual Days With A Maximum Temperature Of At Least 100°f Under 1991 2020 Normals111 days per year
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #9 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Land Area518 square miles
- Mean Travel Time To Work25.6 minutes
- Annual Congestion And Rush Hour Time Lostaverage congestion level: 30.5; rush hour time lost hours: 34; evening rush congestion level: 72.1 percent and hours
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.1 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #13 to #11, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank4
What we observed
- Phoenix Retail Vacancy And Asking Rentvacancy rate: 4.5; average asking rent: 1.78; asking rent yoy change: 9.37 percent usd per sqft month and percent
- Phoenix Metropolitan Retail Vacancy In Q1 20265 percent
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
0.0 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, 5 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #3 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.3 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Approved City Of Phoenix Investment In Asu Health At The Phoenix Bioscience Core50,000,000 usd
- City Reported Bioscience Investment, Primary Facility Space, And Jobs Added Over Five Yearscapital investment usd approximate: 7,000,000,000; primary facility sqft more than: 8,000,000; new jobs up to: 14,000 usd square feet and jobs
- Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix Campus Student And Faculty Populationundergraduate students: 7,902; graduate and professional students: 2,867; faculty: 1,493 people
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.3 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #3 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Land Area518 square miles
- Phoenix Is Divided Into Urban Villages With Distinct Subarea Planning Functions15 urban villages
- Industrial Asking Rent Range Across Named Phoenix Submarkets For Spaces Of At Least 10,000 Square Feetminimum: 0.76; maximum: 1.79 usd per sqft month nnn
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo 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 HomeSmilesStable · tested #2–#3
#3 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#4 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#5 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #2–#8
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#7 Mister Sparky ElectricStable · tested #7–#8
#8 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#9 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#10 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#11 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #11–#14
#13 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #13–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [1] [2] [3] [4] [13] [14] [15] [11]Property replacement-cycle demand: [2] [1] [5] [3]Competitive environment: [1] [7] [11] [9]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [13] [5]Transportation, routing, and parking: [1] [8] [22] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [10] [11] [12] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [22]Sales and customer acquisition: [1] [11] [13] [14]Referral ecosystem: [1] [13] [14] [15]Territory quality: [1] [2] [22] [8] [9] [10] [11] [14] [15]Regulatory and operating friction: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Transportation, routing, and parking | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +0.8 pts | — | — | — | +0.5 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 HomeSmiles | +0.9 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | — | — | +0.4 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #4 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.8 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #5 Aire Serv | +0.6 pts | +0.8 pts | -0.9 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +0.6 pts | — | -0.4 pts | — | +0.1 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #7 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.7 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #8 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — | — | -0.3 pts |
| #9 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.6 pts | -1.1 pts | — | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | +0.6 pts | +0.6 pts | -1.0 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.8 pts | — | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.9 pts | — | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #13 FASTSIGNS | +0.3 pts | — | -0.4 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.2 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -1.3 pts | — | -1.1 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, ActionCOACH 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 ActionCOACH, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Phoenix, Arizona
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.2Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Phoenix, Arizona
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.1 to 69.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.3. Referral ecosystem added 0.3 points on average among the affected concepts. Transportation, routing, and parking reduced the exposed concepts by 0.8 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
- 69.1–69.3
- Category average
- 69.2
Rainbow International Restoration69.3
PuroClean69.1
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 1,665,481people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [1] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 3.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Estimated households during the 2020-2024 period | 610,442households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [1] |
| Land area | 518square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 57.3percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Health care and social assistance revenue | 21,532,515,000usd 2022 | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Total retail sales | 37,904,957,000usd 2022 | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [1] |
| Estimated total housing units | 653,065housing units | 2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [2] |
| Housing units built in 2020 or later | units: 13,327; share: 2housing units and percent | 2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [2] |
| Housing units built from 1970 through 1999 | units: 321,478; share: 49.23housing units and percent | 2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [2] |
| Housing units reported as created or preserved under the Housing Phoenix Plan through December 31, 2024 | 53,000housing units more than | Progress through December 31, 2024 | Housing Phoenix Plan | Used in scoring | [3] [4] |
| Average annual days with a maximum temperature of at least 100°F under 1991-2020 normals | 111days per year | Phoenix period of record 1896-2025; 1991-2020 climate normals | Phoenix climate station | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations compared with the national mean | phoenix msa: 33.48; united states: 33.54usd per hour | May 2025 | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler MSA | Context only | [6] |
| Construction and installation-maintenance-repair mean wages compared with national means | construction and extraction: phoenix msa: 29.42, united states: 31.42; installation maintenance and repair: phoenix msa: 29.88, united states: 30.44usd per hour | May 2025 | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler MSA | Context only | [6] |
| Selected frontline occupation-group mean wages compared with national means | food preparation and serving: phoenix msa: 20.58, united states: 17.86; office and administrative support: phoenix msa: 24.97, united states: 24.79; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: phoenix msa: 19.59, united states: 19.66usd per hour | May 2025 | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler MSA | Context only | [6] |
| Preliminary unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.9percent | June 2026 preliminary labor force and payroll employment | Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA | Context only | [7] |
| Preliminary total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 2,451,100jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor force and payroll employment | Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA | Context only | [7] |
| Mean travel time to work | 25.6minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Annual congestion and rush-hour time lost | average congestion level: 30.5; rush hour time lost hours: 34; evening rush congestion level: 72.1percent and hours | Calendar year 2025 | Phoenix road network | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Phoenix industrial vacancy, asking rent, and construction pipeline | vacancy rate: 9.6; average asking rent: 1.09; under construction sqft: 18,400,000percent usd per sqft month and square feet | Second quarter 2026 | Phoenix industrial market | Supports research conclusion | [9] |
| Industrial asking-rent range across named Phoenix submarkets for spaces of at least 10,000 square feet | minimum: 0.76; maximum: 1.79usd per sqft month nnn | Second quarter 2026 | Phoenix industrial submarkets | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Phoenix retail vacancy and asking rent | vacancy rate: 4.5; average asking rent: 1.78; asking rent yoy change: 9.37percent usd per sqft month and percent | Second quarter 2026 | Phoenix retail market | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Phoenix metropolitan retail vacancy in Q1 2026 | 5percent | First quarter 2026 | Phoenix retail market | Used in scoring | [12] |
| City-reported bioscience investment, primary-facility space, and jobs added over five years | capital investment usd approximate: 7,000,000,000; primary facility sqft more than: 8,000,000; new jobs up to: 14,000usd square feet and jobs | Bioscience investment, facilities, and job growth described for the preceding five years | Phoenix bioscience sector | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix campus student and faculty population | undergraduate students: 7,902; graduate and professional students: 2,867; faculty: 1,493people | Current campus statistics accessed July 2026; degrees awarded in 2024-2025 | ASU Downtown Phoenix campus | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Approved City of Phoenix investment in ASU Health at the Phoenix Bioscience Core | 50,000,000usd | March 2026 approved investment | Phoenix Bioscience Core, downtown Phoenix | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Development impact fees are limited to defined growth areas and vary by project characteristics | effective for qualifying permits after: 2025-06-23; geographic gate: defined growth areas; commercial inputs include: land use, building size, water meter requirementsrule description | Revised fees applicable to qualifying permits after June 23, 2025 | Defined City of Phoenix impact-fee areas | Context only | [16] [17] |
| Phoenix adopted the 2024 construction-code family effective August 1, 2025 | adopted: 2025-06-18; effective: 2025-08-01; code family: 2024 Phoenix Building Construction Codedates and standard | Code effective August 1, 2025 | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [18] |
| Business signs may require permit, placement, height, size, and design review under the Phoenix sign ordinance | permit process: yes; design review possible: yes; zoning reference: Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Chapter 7, Section 705rule description | Current sign-permit guidance accessed July 2026 | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [19] |
| Adaptive Reuse Program offers process assistance and limited fee incentives for qualifying smaller pre-2000 buildings | maximum building size sqft: 25,000; building permitted before: 2,000; entire building change required: yes; maximum fee incentive usd: 7,000eligibility and incentive | Current program rules accessed July 2026 | Qualifying Phoenix adaptive-reuse projects | Context only | [20] |
| Phoenix does not issue a general business license, while specified regulated activities require licenses or approvals | general business license: no; activity specific licenses: yesrule description | Current licensing guidance accessed July 2026 | Phoenix, Arizona | Context only | [21] |
| Phoenix is divided into urban villages with distinct subarea planning functions | 15urban villages | Current planning structure accessed July 2026 | Phoenix urban villages | Used in scoring | [22] |
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 71.17 after target-market demand +0.8 pts, referral ecosystem +0.5 pts, and territory quality -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.
- 1QuickFacts: Phoenix city, Arizona
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households during the 2020-2024 period, Land area, and Owner-occupied housing-unit rate
- 2DP04 Selected Housing Characteristics: Phoenix city, Arizona
Used for: Estimated total housing units, Housing units built in 2020 or later, and Housing units built from 1970 through 1999
- 3City of Phoenix Creates or Preserves 50,000 Housing Units 5 Years Ahead of Goal
Used for: Housing units reported as created or preserved under the Housing Phoenix Plan through December 31, 2024
- 4Housing Phoenix Plan
Used for: Housing units reported as created or preserved under the Housing Phoenix Plan through December 31, 2024
- 5Extreme Temperature Facts for Phoenix, Yuma, and El Centro
Used for: Average annual days with a maximum temperature of at least 100°F under 1991-2020 normals
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations compared with the national mean, Construction and installation-maintenance-repair mean wages compared with national means, and Selected frontline occupation-group mean wages compared with national means
- 7Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Economy at a Glance
Used for: Preliminary unemployment rate in June 2026 and Preliminary total nonfarm employment in June 2026
- 8Phoenix, AZ Traffic Report
Used for: Annual congestion and rush-hour time lost
- 9Phoenix Industrial Figures Q2 2026
Used for: Phoenix industrial vacancy, asking rent, and construction pipeline
- 10Phoenix Industrial Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Industrial asking-rent range across named Phoenix submarkets for spaces of at least 10,000 square feet
- 11Phoenix Retail Market Report Q2 2026
Used for: Phoenix retail vacancy and asking rent
- 12Q1 2026 Phoenix Retail Report
Used for: Phoenix metropolitan retail vacancy in Q1 2026
- 13Mayor Gallego Delivers 2025 State of the City Address
Used for: City-reported bioscience investment, primary-facility space, and jobs added over five years
- 14Downtown Phoenix Campus
Used for: Arizona State University Downtown Phoenix campus student and faculty population
- 15Mayor Gallego, City Council Approve $50 Million Investment for ASU Health
Used for: Approved City of Phoenix investment in ASU Health at the Phoenix Bioscience Core
- 16Development Impact Fees
Used for: Development impact fees are limited to defined growth areas and vary by project characteristics
- 17Development Impact Fee Estimates
Used for: Development impact fees are limited to defined growth areas and vary by project characteristics
- 182024 Phoenix Building Construction Code
Used for: Phoenix adopted the 2024 construction-code family effective August 1, 2025
- 19Signs
Used for: Business signs may require permit, placement, height, size, and design review under the Phoenix sign ordinance
- 20Adaptive Reuse Program
Used for: Adaptive Reuse Program offers process assistance and limited fee incentives for qualifying smaller pre-2000 buildings
- 21License, Permitting and Certification Services
Used for: Phoenix does not issue a general business license, while specified regulated activities require licenses or approvals
- 22Village Planning Committees
Used for: Phoenix is divided into urban villages with distinct subarea planning functions
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.