69.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Phoenix, Arizona
We ranked 14 franchise concepts for Phoenix, Arizona 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
0.5 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 7 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Phoenix, Arizona
Our Phoenix, Arizona 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, HomeSmiles, and Pillar To Post Home Inspectors produced the three highest modeled alignment scores in the evaluated set. Target-market demand was the strongest positive factor: it materially affected 13 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among them. Transportation, routing, and parking was the broadest negative pressure, reducing the 12 exposed concepts by 0.6 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 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness coaching | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance | 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 cleaning | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjusting | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsReferral ecosystem | -0.3 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbing | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.0 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service | 69.6Tier 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 | 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.8 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.5 pts | — | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.1 pts | — | — | — | +0.4 pts | -0.1 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 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.3 pts | — | +0.2 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.7 pts | — | +0.1 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.6 pts | +0.6 pts | -1.0 pts | — | +0.1 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.5 pts | +0.6 pts | -1.1 pts | — | +0.3 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 |
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 | +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.
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, HomeSmiles, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors 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, Aire Serv, Tiger Adjusters; 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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #7 to #3, 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, 9 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #5 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped 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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #10 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts challenged most
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #13 to #11, 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, 4 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #4 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts helped most
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #7 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts challenged most
- 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
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.
Best 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
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 | +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
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for City Wide to support its local contract pipeline?
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 | +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–#5
Most important next check
How many qualified facility and property-management accounts must be reachable for HomeSmiles to support its local contract pipeline?
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
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 | +0.8 |
| 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 | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.32 |
| 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
- Target-market demand +0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#4
Most important next check
Which transaction segments and property types are expected to generate the most inspection demand for Pillar To Post Home Inspectors?
ActionCOACH
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 | +0.1 |
| 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
Most important next check
Which professional referral channels are expected to matter most to ActionCOACH, and what local relationship count supports the plan?
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 | +0.6 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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
Most important next check
What daily vehicle utilization and travel-time allowance are built into Aire Serv's operating plan?
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 | +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
- #5–#8
Most important next check
What concentration of recurring commercial accounts is required for Jan-Pro International to build an efficient local book of business?
Tiger Adjusters
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 | 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 | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.85 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
Most important next check
Which ZIP codes and appointment density assumptions define Tiger Adjusters's practical service territory?
Mister Sparky Electric
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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- 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
Most important next check
What daily vehicle utilization and travel-time allowance are built into Mister Sparky Electric's operating plan?
Mr. Rooter
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 | +0.6 |
| 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 | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not included in the score |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.63 |
| 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 -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#11
Most important next check
How many field vehicles must Mr. Rooter deploy, and where would they begin and end each service day?
ZOOM DRAIN
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 | +0.5 |
| 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
- #5–#11
Most important next check
Where must ZOOM DRAIN stage crews and vehicles to protect after-hours response times across the proposed territory?
Rainbow International Restoration
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 | +0.1 |
| 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
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: 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 | 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
- #12–#14
Most important next check
What dispatch zones and maximum drive-time assumptions does PuroClean use for urgent service calls?
FASTSIGNS
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 | +0.3 |
| 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
Most important next check
How many qualified local business accounts fall inside the territory proposed for FASTSIGNS?
Workout Anytime
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 | +0.4 |
| 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 applicable to this operating model |
| 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
Most important next check
What site size, occupancy-cost ceiling, parking supply, and buildout budget must a Workout Anytime location satisfy?
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Metric registry
The 32 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 | 1,665,481people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [1] |
| Land area | 518square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, economic, and commuting estimates; 2022 economic census measures | Phoenix, Arizona | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Real estate and site feasibility | [1] |
| Estimated total housing units | 653,065housing units | 2020-2024 American Community Survey 5-year estimates | Phoenix, Arizona | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Property replacement-cycle demand, Real estate and site feasibility, Labor and staffing friction, Transportation, routing, and parking | [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 | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction, Property replacement-cycle demand | [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 | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [6] |
| Preliminary unemployment rate in June 2026 | 4.9percent | June 2026 preliminary labor force and payroll employment | Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA | Evidence for Labor and staffing friction | [7] |
| Preliminary total nonfarm employment in June 2026 | 2,451,100jobs | June 2026 preliminary labor force and payroll employment | Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale MSA | Evidence for Target-market demand, Labor and staffing friction, Referral ecosystem | [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 | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Transportation, routing, and parking, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Target-market demand | [11] |
| Phoenix metropolitan retail vacancy in Q1 2026 | 5percent | First quarter 2026 | Phoenix retail market | Evidence for Real estate and site feasibility, Target-market demand | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Labor and staffing friction | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Target-market demand, Referral ecosystem, Territory quality | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction, Real estate and site feasibility | [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 | Evidence for Regulatory and operating friction | [21] |
| Phoenix is divided into urban villages with distinct subarea planning functions | 15urban villages | Current planning structure accessed July 2026 | Phoenix urban villages | Evidence for Territory quality, Real estate and site feasibility, Regulatory and operating friction | [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.
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.
- 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.
