69.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Providence, Rhode Island
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Providence, Rhode Island. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Frontline labor 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
23Sources used
11Primary sources
46Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.1 points average among 10 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Providence, Rhode Island
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.1 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing local business demand moved it from #1 to #2 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 | 72.6Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +1.9 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Providence, Rhode Island
Dense resident base and substantial city-level commercial activity support broad local demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Accommodation and food services sales in 2022: 971,296,000 USD. [7]
A large older-building segment supports repair demand while increasing diagnostic and trade complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [8] [20]
The statewide wage floor and above-national pay in several frontline occupations create direct labor pressure
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States: providence msa: 21.3; united states: 19.66; local employment share percent: 3; us employment share percent: 2.9 USD per hour and percent. [15]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Dense resident base and substantial city-level commercial activity support broad local demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
A large older-building segment supports repair demand while increasing diagnostic and trade complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Properties within Providence local historic districts: 2,635 properties approximately [20]
- Housing units in the 2024 ACS profile: 81,131 housing units [8]
- All customers in the Providence Water distribution system are eligible to register for a free lead service-line replacement, subject to funding and construction-contract availability: yes boolean [11]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
The statewide wage floor and above-national pay in several frontline occupations create direct labor pressure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Active I-95 and Route 10 bridge construction creates corridor-specific routing and schedule risk1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
University, health-system, and municipal institutions create concentrated referral and contract channels with formal procurement gates3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 3 sources
- Purchasing thresholds under the City Board of Contract and Supply: construction projects over: 20,000; other city purchases over: 10,000 USD [21]
- Education and health services employment in June 2026: employment thousands: 161.7; twelve month change percent: 1.1 thousands of jobs and percent [16]
- Brown University degree-candidate IPEDS enrollment in Fall 2025: 11,164 full time equivalent students [13]
Professional and institutional relationship densityReferral ecosystem
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.6
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.60 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.1 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.36 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
2 images
Public company data assessed
3 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.9 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.9 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +2.32 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.32 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.2 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.30 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +2.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +2.0 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.67 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.67 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.24 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sourcesFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.20 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.20 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.18 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.05 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Item 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
1 sourceFull calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.05 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Route and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.20 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.80 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.74 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -1.0 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.0 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.38 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | -1.0 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.62 |
| 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
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.2
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.82 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.18 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 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 | +2.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #6 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected+1.1 pts
Average across all concepts+0.8 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025195,310 people
- Households In The 2020 2024 Period71,497 households
- Population Density In 202010,373.5 people per square mile
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.0 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.9 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.2 pts
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, 5 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #5 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank5
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Pillar To Post Home Inspectors moved from #7 to #12, 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 rank9
What we observed
- Rhode Island Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202616 USD per hour
- Enacted Rhode Island Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202717 USD per hour
- Food Preparation And Serving Average Hourly Wage In The Providence Metropolitan Area Compared With The United Statesprovidence msa: 19.08; united states: 17.86; local employment share percent: 10.4; us employment share percent: 8.8 USD per hour and percent
Concepts challenged most
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-1.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.0 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.9 pts
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #2 to #1, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank6
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.4 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#4 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#5 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #4–#6
#6 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#8 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#10 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#11 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#12 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #7–#12
#13 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #9–#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: [7] [8] [13] [14] [16] [22] [4] [6]Property replacement-cycle demand: [8] [9] [20] [10] [11] [12] [15] [4]Competitive environment: [7] [21] [22] [23] [6]Labor and staffing friction: [17] [15] [16] [14] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [18] [19] [7] [10] [6]Real estate and site feasibility: [23] [22] [20] [19] [10] [4] [6]Sales and customer acquisition: [13] [14] [16] [21] [7] [6]Referral ecosystem: [13] [14] [16] [21] [6]Territory quality: [7] [8] [20] [18] [19] [13] [22] [6]Regulatory and operating friction: [20] [21] [19] [11] [12] [10] [5] [6]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.3 pts | — | -0.3 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +2.1 pts | — | — | +0.3 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +1.9 pts | — | — | +0.5 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +1.2 pts | — | -0.4 pts | +0.5 pts |
| #5 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | +0.3 pts |
| #6 Jan-Pro International | +2.0 pts | — | -1.5 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.2 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.1 pts | — |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | +0.3 pts | — | -0.1 pts | — |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.4 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #11 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.2 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #12 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | -0.9 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.2 pts | -1.0 pts | +0.4 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — | -0.8 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, FASTSIGNS, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Providence, Rhode Island
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Providence, Rhode Island
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.6 to 69.7. PuroClean ranked highest at 69.7. Referral ecosystem added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.9 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 69.6–69.7
- Category average
- 69.7
PuroClean69.7
Rainbow International Restoration69.6
Metric registry
The 46 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 | 195,310people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Population change from the April 1, 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025 | 2.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Context only | [7] |
| Households in the 2020-2024 period | 71,497households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Population density in 2020 | 10,373.5people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022 | 5,383,516,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Retail sales in 2022 | 1,932,349,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Accommodation and food services sales in 2022 | 971,296,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and older | 25minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 characteristics; 2022 sector receipts and sales; 2020 geography | Providence, Rhode Island | Context only | [7] |
| Housing units in the 2024 ACS profile | 81,131housing units | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Providence, Rhode Island | Supports modeled relationship | [8] |
| Residents who moved since the previous year | 16.9percent | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Providence, Rhode Island | Context only | [8] |
| Housing identified by the secondary profile as built in 1939 or earlier | 54.5percent of homes | Current profile accessed August 2026; housing-age source period not stated on the page | Providence, Rhode Island | Supports modeled relationship | [9] |
| Local historic overlay districts | 9districts | Current rules, district count, and 2026 meeting information accessed August 2026 | Providence local historic districts | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Properties within Providence local historic districts | 2,635properties approximately | Current rules, district count, and 2026 meeting information accessed August 2026 | Providence local historic districts | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| PHDC legal decision window and typical review timing for complete applications | legal maximum days: 45; most applications days or less: 30; staff review typical: less than one weekcalendar days | Current rules, district count, and 2026 meeting information accessed August 2026 | Properties under PHDC jurisdiction | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| PHDC review is required for exterior work affecting a designated property or its setting, while listed minor items, temporary signs, and paint colors are exempt | yesboolean | Current rules, district count, and 2026 meeting information accessed August 2026 | Properties under PHDC jurisdiction | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| City estimate of sewer collection pipes at least 100 years old | 60percent minimum | System data and technical analysis primarily through December 2024 | City of Providence sewer collection system | Context only | [10] |
| Parts of the sewer and stormwater systems date to the 1850s | 1850sconstruction era | System data and technical analysis primarily through December 2024 | City of Providence sewer and stormwater systems | Context only | [10] |
| Significant neighborhood flooding events reported during the preceding three years | 13events | System data and technical analysis primarily through December 2024 | Providence, Rhode Island | Context only | [10] |
| All customers in the Providence Water distribution system are eligible to register for a free lead service-line replacement, subject to funding and construction-contract availability | yesboolean | Current program terms accessed August 2026 | Providence Water distribution system | Supports modeled relationship | [11] |
| Providence Water target year for replacing all lead service lines in its service area | 2,033year | Current program terms accessed August 2026 | Providence Water distribution system | Context only | [11] |
| Providence Water sends annual notices to properties with lead or unknown service-line material | yesboolean | Annual notification cycle in 2026 | Providence Water service area | Supports modeled relationship | [12] |
| Brown University degree-candidate IPEDS enrollment in Fall 2025 | 11,164full time equivalent students | Fall 2025 IPEDS enrollment as of October 15, 2025 | Brown University, Providence | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Brown University Health employees in fiscal year 2024 | 13,715employees | Fiscal year 2024 | Brown University Health system | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| Brown University Health outpatient visits in fiscal year 2024 | 893,461visits | Fiscal year 2024 | Brown University Health system | Supports modeled relationship | [14] |
| Purchasing thresholds under the City Board of Contract and Supply | construction projects over: 20,000; other city purchases over: 10,000USD | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Providence procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| The Board of Contract and Supply meets bi-weekly | bi-weeklymeeting frequency | Current procurement process accessed August 2026 | City of Providence procurement | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| Rhode Island minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 16USD per hour | Minimum wage effective January 1, 2026; enacted increase effective January 1, 2027 | Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [17] |
| Enacted Rhode Island minimum wage effective January 1, 2027 | 17USD per hour | Minimum wage effective January 1, 2026; enacted increase effective January 1, 2027 | Rhode Island | Used in scoring | [17] |
| Food preparation and serving average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States | providence msa: 19.08; united states: 17.86; local employment share percent: 10.4; us employment share percent: 8.8USD per hour and percent | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States | providence msa: 21.3; united states: 19.66; local employment share percent: 3; us employment share percent: 2.9USD per hour and percent | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Healthcare support average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States | providence msa: 22; united states: 19.62; local employment share percent: 5.5; us employment share percent: 5.1USD per hour and percent | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Construction and extraction average hourly wage and employment share in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States | providence msa: 34.77; united states: 31.42; local employment share percent: 3.9; us employment share percent: 4.1USD per hour and percent | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Context only | [15] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair average hourly wage and employment share in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States | providence msa: 30.6; united states: 30.44; local employment share percent: 3.3; us employment share percent: 3.9USD per hour and percent | May 2025; release reissued June 24, 2026 | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Context only | [15] |
| Providence metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.7percent | Monthly labor force and industry employment through June 2026; June preliminary | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Used in scoring | [16] |
| Education and health services employment in June 2026 | employment thousands: 161.7; twelve month change percent: 1.1thousands of jobs and percent | Monthly labor force and industry employment through June 2026; June preliminary | Providence-Warwick, RI-MA MSA | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Bridges included in the I-95 15 design-build project | 15bridges | Active project status and July 24, 2026 project update; construction scheduled 2024-2031 | I-95 and Route 10 between Providence and Warwick | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Daily vehicles on the I-95 15 project corridor | 185,000vehicles per day | Active project status and July 24, 2026 project update; construction scheduled 2024-2031 | I-95 and Route 10 between Providence and Warwick | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Daily trucks and heavy freight vehicles on the I-95 15 project corridor | 9,000heavy vehicles per day approximately | Active project status and July 24, 2026 project update; construction scheduled 2024-2031 | I-95 and Route 10 between Providence and Warwick | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| I-95 15 project construction schedule and detour status | start year: 2,024; finish year: 2,031; detours needed: yesschedule | Active project status and July 24, 2026 project update; construction scheduled 2024-2031 | Providence, Cranston, and Warwick I-95 and Route 10 corridor | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| RIDOT reported alternating nighttime lane closures and Eddy Street Bridge work in its July 24, 2026 update | yesboolean | Active project status and July 24, 2026 project update; construction scheduled 2024-2031 | I-95 from Park Avenue to Thurbers Avenue, including Eddy Street Bridge in Providence | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Maximum commercial-vehicle dwell time in a Providence commercial loading zone unless otherwise posted | 30minutes | Standards published April 2022 and current on the accessed City page | Providence commercial loading zones | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Default commercial loading-zone length | 40feet | Standards published April 2022 and current on the accessed City page | Providence commercial loading zones | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Loading-zone approval considers insufficient off-street facilities, frequently occupied nearby parking, delivery frequency, and surrounding-business input | yesboolean | Standards published April 2022 and current on the accessed City page | Applicant site and surrounding curb area in Providence | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| Rhode Island industrial vacancy range reported for spring 2026 | minimum: 4; maximum: 5percent | Spring 2026 market conditions | Rhode Island industrial market | Context only | [23] |
| Industry commentary described limited modern functional industrial supply and longer tenant search timelines | yesboolean | Spring 2026 market conditions | Rhode Island industrial market | Context only | [23] |
| Q2 2026 industry reporting described a gradual but uneven return of daytime activity in the Providence central business district alongside moderate leasing and negative net absorption | daytime return: gradual and uneven; leasing activity: moderate; net absorption: negativequalitative market condition | Second quarter 2026 | Providence central business district and metropolitan office market | Conditional relationship | [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 72.60 after target-market demand +2.3 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.3 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit model definitionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Compiler-ready city research JSON instructionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Multi-city structural operating-environment research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Forensic Audit Report: Structural Capital Constraints and Jurisdictional Risk ProfilesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 6Franchise neighborhood operating-evidence tableInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 7QuickFacts: Providence city, Rhode Island
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 1, 2020 estimate base to July 1, 2025, Households in the 2020-2024 period, Population density in 2020, and Health care and social assistance receipts in 2022
- 8Providence, RI profile data
Used for: Housing units in the 2024 ACS profile and Residents who moved since the previous year
- 9Providence, Rhode Island real estate and housing profile
Used for: Housing identified by the secondary profile as built in 1939 or earlier
- 10Sustainable Stormwater and Sewer Assessment
Used for: City estimate of sewer collection pipes at least 100 years old, Parts of the sewer and stormwater systems date to the 1850s, and Significant neighborhood flooding events reported during the preceding three years
- 11Lead Service Line Replacement Programs
Used for: All customers in the Providence Water distribution system are eligible to register for a free lead service-line replacement, subject to funding and construction-contract availability and Providence Water target year for replacing all lead service lines in its service area
- 12Service Line Material Notifications
Used for: Providence Water sends annual notices to properties with lead or unknown service-line material
- 13Summary of Enrollment and Degrees
Used for: Brown University degree-candidate IPEDS enrollment in Fall 2025
- 14Brown University Health Facts and Statistics
Used for: Brown University Health employees in fiscal year 2024 and Brown University Health outpatient visits in fiscal year 2024
- 15Occupational Employment and Wages in Providence-Warwick — May 2025
Used for: Food preparation and serving average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States, Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States, Healthcare support average hourly wage in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States, Construction and extraction average hourly wage and employment share in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States, and Installation, maintenance, and repair average hourly wage and employment share in the Providence metropolitan area compared with the United States
- 16Providence-Warwick, RI-MA Economy at a Glance
Used for: Providence metropolitan unemployment rate in June 2026 and Education and health services employment in June 2026
- 17Minimum Wage
Used for: Rhode Island minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 and Enacted Rhode Island minimum wage effective January 1, 2027
- 18The I-95 15
Used for: Bridges included in the I-95 15 design-build project, Daily vehicles on the I-95 15 project corridor, Daily trucks and heavy freight vehicles on the I-95 15 project corridor, I-95 15 project construction schedule and detour status, and RIDOT reported alternating nighttime lane closures and Eddy Street Bridge work in its July 24, 2026 update
- 19Commercial Loading Zone Process and Standard
Used for: Maximum commercial-vehicle dwell time in a Providence commercial loading zone unless otherwise posted, Default commercial loading-zone length, and Loading-zone approval considers insufficient off-street facilities, frequently occupied nearby parking, delivery frequency, and surrounding-business input
- 20Providence Historic District Commission
Used for: Local historic overlay districts, Properties within Providence local historic districts, PHDC legal decision window and typical review timing for complete applications, and PHDC review is required for exterior work affecting a designated property or its setting, while listed minor items, temporary signs, and paint colors are exempt
- 21Purchasing and Board of Contract and Supply
Used for: Purchasing thresholds under the City Board of Contract and Supply and The Board of Contract and Supply meets bi-weekly
- 22Providence Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Q2 2026 industry reporting described a gradual but uneven return of daytime activity in the Providence central business district alongside moderate leasing and negative net absorption
- 23Limited supply fuels landlord-friendly conditions in Rhode Island’s industrial market
Used for: Rhode Island industrial vacancy range reported for spring 2026 and Industry commentary described limited modern functional industrial supply and longer tenant search timelines
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.