70.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Provo, Utah
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Provo, Utah. University and government account demand was a leading positive mechanism.
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
27Sources used
19Primary sources
26Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.5 points average among 6 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Provo, Utah
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and Rainbow International Restoration produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. University and government account demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.5 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing university and government account demand moved it from #1 to #13 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.8 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Provo, Utah
BYU creates a large formal institutional account base within Provo
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.5 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: BYU purchase-order and competitive-bidding thresholds: purchase order required over usd: 3,500; competitive bidding recommended at or over usd: 5,000; competitive bidding required at or over usd: 10,000 usd thresholds. [7] [6] [3] [1]
Ages 20 to 24 account for 34.2 percent of Provo residents in the 2024 ACS and BYU reported 37,205 daytime students in Fall 2025
Provo has an unusually large young-adult and university population, but the city population estimate for July 2025 was 0.6 percent below the April 2020 estimates base. The youth concentration is therefore more defensible as institution- and student-segment evidence than as proof of broad household growth, uniform walk-in traffic, or generalized household-service expansion. [5] [6] [3] [1] [4]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was property replacement-cycle demand. [6] [7] [3] [1]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
BYU creates a large formal institutional account base within Provo1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Severe weathering and frost-design conditions support weatherization and repair exposure1 modeled effect
Freeze-thaw repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
University Avenue bridge reconstruction temporarily constrains a central Provo corridor1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +1.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.05 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
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
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
- Strong
- 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 +1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#13
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.77 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- 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
- #2–#14
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.72 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.72 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.71 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.71 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.60 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.6 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#13
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.51 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.51 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.3 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.34 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.34 |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
| Net local movement | +0.32 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- 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 +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.30 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 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.30 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.21 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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.21 |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo material negative local adjustment identified
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedNo 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.
No material scored local adjustment was identified for this concept.
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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- 0.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#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 mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #7 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank13
What we observed
- Byu Purchase Order And Competitive Bidding Thresholdspurchase order required over usd: 3,500; competitive bidding recommended at or over usd: 5,000; competitive bidding required at or over usd: 10,000 usd thresholds
- Byu Total Daytime Enrollment In Fall 202537,205 students
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+0.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.3 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.3 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 5 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #4 to #13, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted5 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Provo Building Design Criteria Identify Severe Weathering And A 30 Inch Frost Lineweathering: severe; frost line depth inches: 30; ground snow load psf: 31; air freezing index: 834; mean annual temperature f: 53.5; outdoor winter design dry bulb f: 13 mixed design criteria
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo 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
- Referral ecosystemNo 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 WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#13
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#3 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#4 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #1–#7
#5 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #2–#13
#6 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#7 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#8 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #4–#12
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #5–#11
#11 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#12 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#12
#13 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [10] [4] [1]Competitive environment: [27] [26] [22] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [2] [1]Transportation, routing, and parking: [11] [12] [13] [18] [17] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [17] [18] [14] [15] [16] [24] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [27] [26] [22] [7] [1]Referral ecosystem: [6] [7] [26] [27]Territory quality: [4] [24] [25] [18]Regulatory and operating friction: [22] [23] [17] [19] [20] [21] [24] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand |
|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.1 pts | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +0.8 pts | — |
| #3 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #4 Aire Serv | — | +0.7 pts |
| #5 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts |
| #6 FASTSIGNS | +0.5 pts | — |
| #7 HomeSmiles | +0.3 pts | — |
| #8 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.2 pts |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | — | — |
| #12 ZOOM DRAIN | — | — |
| #13 Mr. Rooter | — | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | — | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Rainbow International Restoration led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to competitive environment. 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 City Wide, Jan-Pro International, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Provo, Utah
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Provo, Utah
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.6 to 70.7. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.7. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts.
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
- 70.6–70.7
- Category average
- 70.7
Rainbow International Restoration70.7
PuroClean70.6
Metric registry
The 26 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 | 114,527people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025 | -0.6percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households, 2020-2024 | 34,022households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 39.4percent of occupied housing units | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] |
| Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2020-2024 | 467,200usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] [1] |
| Median household income, 2020-2024 | 64,171usd 2024 | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] |
| Persons in poverty, 2020-2024 | 23percent of people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic statistics | Provo, Utah | Context only | [4] |
| Residents age 20 to 24 in 2024 | count: 39,462; share percent: 34.2; count margin of error: 3,057; share margin of error percentage points: 2.6people and percent | 2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates | Provo, Utah | Supports research conclusion | [5] |
| BYU total daytime enrollment in Fall 2025 | 37,205students | Fall 2025 enrollment profile | Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah | Used in scoring | [6] [3] [1] |
| BYU purchase-order and competitive-bidding thresholds | purchase order required over usd: 3,500; competitive bidding recommended at or over usd: 5,000; competitive bidding required at or over usd: 10,000usd thresholds | Current purchasing procedures accessed August 2026 | Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Provo building design criteria identify severe weathering and a 30-inch frost line | weathering: severe; frost line depth inches: 30; ground snow load psf: 31; air freezing index: 834; mean annual temperature f: 53.5; outdoor winter design dry bulb f: 13mixed design criteria | Current structural design criteria accessed August 2026 | Provo, Utah | Used in scoring | [10] [1] |
| Provo-Orem-Lehi MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | labor force thousands: 367.2; employment thousands: 353.1; unemployment thousands: 14.1; unemployment rate percent: 3.8; preliminary: yesthousands of people and percent | Labor force through June 2026; nonfarm employment through June 2026 | Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT MSA | Context only | [8] |
| Selected occupational mean hourly wages in the Provo-Orem-Lehi MSA, May 2024 | all occupations local usd per hour: 29.54; all occupations national usd per hour: 32.66; food preparation and serving usd per hour: 15.47; building and grounds cleaning maintenance usd per hour: 18.06; personal care and service usd per hour: 18.37; construction and extraction usd per hour: 26.58; installation maintenance and repair usd per hour: 26.82usd per hour | May 2024 occupational employment and wages | Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT MSA | Context only | [9] |
| Construction and extraction employment concentration in the Provo-Orem-Lehi MSA, May 2024 | employment: 20,960; share of local employment percent: 7; national share percent: 4.1; location quotient: 1.7; construction laborer location quotient: 2.49people percent and location quotient | May 2024 occupational employment and wages | Provo-Orem-Lehi, UT MSA | Context only | [9] |
| University Avenue / U.S. 189 bridge reconstruction is reducing daytime traffic to one lane in each direction during phased work | project start: 2025-10-01; daytime traffic: one lane each direction; phases: 2; scheduled completion: fall 2027; route: University Avenue / U.S. 189; regional freight relevance: yesproject conditions | Project start October 2025; phased construction scheduled through fall 2027 | University Avenue / U.S | Conditional relationship | [11] [12] [13] [3] |
| City project page reports MSE-wall work and early-August girder installation for the University Avenue bridge | current progress: MSE wall work with bridge girder installation anticipated in early August; traffic impact: one lane in each direction maintained; estimated completion: fall 2027project status | Current project status accessed August 2026 | Between 500 South and 920 South, Provo | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Utah County industrial conditions in Q1 2026 | positive absorption sqft approx: 430,000; under construction sqft approx: 2,900,000; direct vacancy percent: 3.9; asking rent usd per sqft month nnn: 0.96; flex product comment: continued strengthmixed market metrics | Q1 2026 | Utah County, Utah | Context only | [14] |
| Utah County overall industrial vacancy in Q2 2026 | 7.2percent overall vacancy including sublease | Q2 2026 | Utah County, Utah | Context only | [15] |
| Current Provo flex listing at 711 S University Ave | available for lease sqft: 6,700; building size sqft: 11,800; asking rent usd per sqft month nnn: 1.25; ground level doors per unit: 3property listing metrics | Live listing accessed August 2026 | 711 S University Ave, Provo, Utah | Context only | [16] |
| Provo sets use-specific off-street parking minimums for commercial uses | restaurant: 1 space per 4 seats or 1 per 100 square feet GFA including outside seating; fast food: 1 per 100 square feet plus 3 drive-through stacking spaces; business professional office: 1 per 250 square feet GFA; repair services: 1 per 300 square feet GFA; retail grocery convenience personal laundry: 1 per 200 square feet plus 1 per 400 square feet on additional floors; warehouse: 1 per 600 square feet GFA; contractor yard: 1 per vehicle plus 1 per 1000 square feet GFAparking ratio rules | Code current through Ordinance 2026-17, passed June 9, 2026 | Provo, Utah, subject to zoning-title exceptions and exact use | Conditional relationship | [17] [3] |
| City reports more than 10,000 downtown parking spaces and identifies some permit-parking areas elsewhere | downtown parking spaces over: 10,000; permit parking areas exist: yesspaces and boolean | Current parking information accessed August 2026 | Downtown and permit-parking areas in Provo | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Major home occupations may use outside employees and a larger commercial vehicle under specified conditions | customer limit per hour 8am 5pm: 6; customer limit per hour 5pm 9pm: 2; commercial vehicle max gvwr lb: 17,500; minimum lot sqft for outside employee allowance: 8,000; outside employees standard max at once: 1; no customer business outside employees max at once: 2; no customer employee hours latest: 21:00rule thresholds | Code current through Ordinance 2026-17, passed June 9, 2026 | Provo major home occupations approved as conditional uses | Context only | [19] [20] |
| Provo FOG rules require approved interceptors when deemed necessary and continual user-funded maintenance where installed | interceptor required when coordinator deems necessary for excessive grease oil or sand: yes; type and capacity require city approval: yes; continual cleaning and maintenance at user expense: yes; sampling manhole required within feet: 10; city regularly inspects food service establishments: yescompliance conditions | Current pretreatment and FOG program accessed August 2026 | Food service establishments subject to Provo pretreatment requirements | Context only | [21] |
| Provo requires a business license and advises a zoning check before location selection | business license required: yes; typical processing days: 14; zoning check before location selection: yes; classification specific items possible: yesprocess conditions | Current licensing process accessed August 2026 | Businesses operating in Provo | Context only | [22] [20] |
| Current nonresidential utility and transportation-utility rates are publicly specified | nonresidential sewer base monthly usd: 0.75 inch meter: 21.2, 1 inch meter: 52.99, 1.5 inch meter: 106, 2 inch meter: 169.57, 3 inch meter: 317.96, 4 inch meter: 529.92, 6 inch meter: 1,059.84, 8 inch meter: 1,695.74; sewer commodity usd per 1000 gallons: 5.81; stormwater usd per esu: 10.75; commercial tuf monthly usd: under 100 trip ends: 11.38, 100 to 199 trip ends: 30.05, 200 to 599 trip ends: 90.38, 600 plus trip ends: 269.93usd rate schedule | Current rates accessed August 2026 | Provo public-works utility customers | Context only | [23] |
| Provo public GIS separates zoning and multiple site-specific planning or overlay layers | Provo Zoning, Water Hazard, Geologic Hazard, Design Corridors, Joaquin Design Standards, Downtown Streetscape Area, Historic District, Neighborhood Conservation Districtgis layers | Current GIS layers accessed August 2026 | Provo, Utah | Context only | [24] [25] |
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 whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.05 after target-market demand +1.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Utility Delta Audit: A Private Equity Real Estate AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2020-2024, BYU total daytime enrollment in Fall 2025, and Provo building design criteria identify severe weathering and a 30-inch frost line
- 2Forensic Municipal Constraint and Structural Friction ReportInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - B start(8)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: BYU total daytime enrollment in Fall 2025, University Avenue / U.S. 189 bridge reconstruction is reducing daytime traffic to one lane in each direction during phased work, and Provo sets use-specific off-street parking minimums for commercial uses
- 4QuickFacts: Provo city, Utah
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025, Estimated households, 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2020-2024
- 5S0101: Age and Sex — Provo city, Utah
Used for: Residents age 20 to 24 in 2024
- 6Facts & Figures
Used for: BYU total daytime enrollment in Fall 2025
- 7Purchase Order FAQ's
Used for: BYU purchase-order and competitive-bidding thresholds
- 8Provo-Orem, UT Economy at a Glance
Used for: Provo-Orem-Lehi MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 9Occupational Employment and Wages in Provo-Orem-Lehi — May 2024
Used for: Selected occupational mean hourly wages in the Provo-Orem-Lehi MSA, May 2024 and Construction and extraction employment concentration in the Provo-Orem-Lehi MSA, May 2024
- 10Design Criteria
Used for: Provo building design criteria identify severe weathering and a 30-inch frost line
- 11Construction Set to Begin on University Avenue Bridge in Provo
Used for: University Avenue / U.S. 189 bridge reconstruction is reducing daytime traffic to one lane in each direction during phased work
- 12UDOT demolishes west half of University Avenue bridge in Provo
Used for: University Avenue / U.S. 189 bridge reconstruction is reducing daytime traffic to one lane in each direction during phased work
- 13Central District (formerly Neighborhood District 5)
Used for: University Avenue / U.S. 189 bridge reconstruction is reducing daytime traffic to one lane in each direction during phased work and City project page reports MSE-wall work and early-August girder installation for the University Avenue bridge
- 14Utah County Industrial Market Report | 2026 Q1
Used for: Utah County industrial conditions in Q1 2026
- 15Q2 2026 Utah County Industrial Report
Used for: Utah County overall industrial vacancy in Q2 2026
- 16Provo Industrial Flex Space — 711 S University Ave
Used for: Current Provo flex listing at 711 S University Ave
- 1714.37.060 Parking Spaces Required
Used for: Provo sets use-specific off-street parking minimums for commercial uses
- 18Parking
Used for: City reports more than 10,000 downtown parking spaces and identifies some permit-parking areas elsewhere
- 1914.41.060 Major Home Occupations
Used for: Major home occupations may use outside employees and a larger commercial vehicle under specified conditions
- 20Home-Based Business Permit
Used for: Major home occupations may use outside employees and a larger commercial vehicle under specified conditions and Provo requires a business license and advises a zoning check before location selection
- 21Pretreatment Programs
Used for: Provo FOG rules require approved interceptors when deemed necessary and continual user-funded maintenance where installed
- 22Commercial Business License
Used for: Provo requires a business license and advises a zoning check before location selection
- 23Public Works Utility Rates
Used for: Current nonresidential utility and transportation-utility rates are publicly specified
- 24Provo360/SpatialQueries (MapServer)
Used for: Provo public GIS separates zoning and multiple site-specific planning or overlay layers
- 25Planning
Used for: Provo public GIS separates zoning and multiple site-specific planning or overlay layers
- 26
- 27
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.