Local operating-model alignment analysis

Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Salt Lake City, Utah

We compared 14 franchise concepts for Salt Lake City, Utah. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity 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.
Analysis by Thomas Jepsen, MSc Model: 0.9.0
View the ranking See the local evidence
14Concepts evaluated
32Sources used
20Primary sources
33Local 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

Highest category average (limited comparison)Restoration

69.8 average across 2 concepts

Largest positive factorTarget-market demand

1.2 points average among 11 affected concepts

Largest negative factorLabor and staffing friction

0.4 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts

Most assumption-sensitive rankJan-Pro International

Tested rank range spans 12 positions

Executive conclusion

What the ranking means for Salt Lake City, Utah

City Wide, ActionCOACH, and FASTSIGNS 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. 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.
RankFranchiseAlignment and tierLargest advantageLargest constraintEvidence confidence
1City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730
73.0Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment
+2.9 ptsTarget-market demand -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
2ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513
72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment
+2.1 ptsTarget-market demand -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
3FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285
72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment
+2.4 ptsTarget-market demand -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
4Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500
71.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+2.5 ptsTarget-market demand -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
5HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800
71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+1.4 ptsTarget-market demand -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
6ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500
70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
7Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290
70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
8Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675
70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence
9Tiger 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
10Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708
70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment
+0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction Moderate evidence confidence

View all 14 score calculations

Conditions that changed the analysis

What mattered most in Salt Lake City, Utah

01

Resident, business, logistics, health-care, and institutional scale supports broad local account demand

This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.1 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue: 6,827,165,000 usd. [7]

02

Large pre-1960 housing cohort supports repair and replacement demand while increasing older-system complexity

The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [13]

03

asset-light-b2b

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 labor and staffing friction. [8] [7] [25] [17] [15] [16] [10] [12] [26]

Evidence behind the city mechanisms

Resident, business, logistics, health-care, and institutional scale supports broad local account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Large pre-1960 housing cohort supports repair and replacement demand while increasing older-system complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 1 source
  • Share of city housing stock built before 1960: 43.3 percent [13]
  • Share of city housing stock built before 1940: 29 percent [13]
  • Owner-occupied units built before 1960: 25,000 housing units [13]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Below-balanced unemployment rates indicate broad labor availability pressure1 modeled effect
Broad labor scarcityLabor and staffing friction
Meter limits and residential permit restrictions create location-specific parking and curb constraints1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
University and public-sector account base supports institutional selling and professional referral development3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 4 sources
  • University of Utah total enrollment: 38,261 students [12]
  • Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue: 6,827,165,000 usd [7]
  • Salt Lake City and State of Utah solicitations use formal public procurement platforms: yes boolean [25] [26]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand

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 alignment73.0

City Wide

Facility management · B2B facility management and vendor coordination

Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730

Increase +2.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #1
  • University and government account demand Evidence+0.6 pts
+2.9 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Institutional professional relationship base Evidence+0.3 pts
+0.3 pts
Labor and staffing friction-0.2 pts
Net local movement+2.99 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.9
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.2
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.3
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.99
Published local-market alignment73.0

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Strong
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Adequate
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Target-market demand +2.9 pts
Tested rank range
#1–#3
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4

ActionCOACH

Business coaching · home-based B2B advisory

Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513

Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.9 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #2
  • University and government account demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+2.1 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Institutional professional relationship base Evidence+0.4 pts
+0.4 pts
Labor and staffing friction-0.1 pts
Net local movement+2.40 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.1
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.4
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.40
Published local-market alignment72.4

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 alignment72.4

FASTSIGNS

Signs and graphics · B2B production and installation center

Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285

Increase +2.4 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.1 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #3
  • University and government account demand Evidence+0.3 pts
+2.4 pts
Labor and staffing friction-0.1 pts
Referral ecosystem
  • Institutional professional relationship base Evidence+0.1 pts
+0.1 pts
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 sources
YouTube video 1YouTube video 2YouTube video 3
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.4
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.1
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.36
Published local-market alignment72.4

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 +2.4 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#6
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.7

Jan-Pro International

Commercial cleaning · recurring commercial route service

Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500

Increase +2.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+2.0 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #4 → #13
  • University and government account demand Evidence+0.4 pts
+2.5 pts
Labor and staffing friction-0.7 pts
Net local movement+1.72 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
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.5
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.7
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.72
Published local-market alignment71.7

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 +2.5 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#14
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2

HomeSmiles

Property maintenance services · Home-based mobile property-maintenance franchise using equipped service vans and technician crews to deliver bundled…

Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800

Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+1.2 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #5 → #8
  • University and government account demand Evidence+0.2 pts
+1.4 pts
Labor and staffing friction-0.3 pts
Net local movement+1.18 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 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+1.4
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.3
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score71.18
Published local-market alignment71.2

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 +1.4 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#12
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4

ZOOM DRAIN

Drain and sewer service · emergency skilled-trade route service

Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500

Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.6 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #6 → #8
+0.6 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.6 pts
-0.6 pts
Target-market demand+0.4 pts
Net local movement+0.45 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.4
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.6
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.6
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.45
Published local-market alignment70.4

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
Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
Tested rank range
#4–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3

Pillar To Post Home Inspectors

Home inspection · mobile property inspection service

Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290

Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #7
+0.3 pts
Target-market demand+0.2 pts
Labor and staffing friction
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.1 pts
-0.1 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 19 — Financial Performance Representation
1 image
Public company data assessed
2 sources
YouTube video 1YouTube video 2
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.2
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.3
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.34
Published local-market alignment70.3

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
Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
Tested rank range
#2–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3

Mr. Rooter

Plumbing · scheduled and emergency skilled-trade service

Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675

Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.6 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #8 → #7
-0.6 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.6 pts
+0.6 pts
Target-market demand+0.3 pts
Net local movement+0.31 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.3
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.6
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.6
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.31
Published local-market alignment70.3

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
Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
Tested rank range
#5–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2

Tiger Adjusters

Public insurance adjusting · Home-based, referral-led public insurance adjusting business combining local property inspections with…

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 factorModeled driversImpact
Target-market demand
  • Local business demand Evidence+0.3 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #9 → #7
+0.3 pts
Labor and staffing friction-0.1 pts
Net local movement+0.23 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 source
YouTube video 1
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.3
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.1
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.23
Published local-market alignment70.2

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
#6–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2

Aire Serv

HVAC installation, repair, and maintenance · Manager-led mobile HVAC installation, repair, maintenance, and emergency service business using skilled technicians…

Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708

Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.6 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #10 → #8
  • Broad labor scarcity Evidence-0.1 pts
-0.8 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Target-market demand+0.4 pts
Net local movement+0.15 pts

Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 source
YouTube video 1
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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.4
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.5
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.8
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score70.15
Published local-market alignment70.2

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
Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
Tested rank range
#8–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8

Rainbow International Restoration

Restoration · emergency property restoration

Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900

Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Broad labor scarcity Evidence-0.4 pts
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.2 pts
-0.7 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #11 → #12
+0.4 pts
Target-market demand
  • University and government account demand Evidence+0.1 pts
+0.1 pts
Net local movement-0.15 pts

Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.

Franchise evidence

Source material assessed

Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence

Audit layer

Full factor ledger

Full score ledger

Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.

Neutral model baseline70.0
Target-market demand+0.1
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.4
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.7
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.85
Published local-market alignment69.8

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 -0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#9–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8

Mister Sparky Electric

Electrical · skilled-trade home service

Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.7 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #12 → #9
-0.7 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.5 pts
+0.5 pts
Transportation, routing, and parkingRoute and curb productivity pressure EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmedNot scored
Net local movement-0.16 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.5
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.7
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.84
Published local-market alignment69.8

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 -0.7 pts
Tested rank range
#8–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8

PuroClean

Restoration · emergency property restoration

Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145

Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Broad labor scarcity Evidence-0.3 pts
  • Legacy-system service complexity Evidence-0.3 pts
-0.6 pts
Property replacement-cycle demand
  • Replacement and repair demand Evidence+0.4 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: rank stays #13
+0.4 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 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demand+0.4
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.6
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.82
Published local-market alignment69.8

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 -0.6 pts
Tested rank range
#9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5

Workout Anytime

Fitness · fixed-location membership fitness

Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550

No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.5 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 factorModeled driversImpact
Labor and staffing friction
  • Broad labor scarcity Evidence-0.5 pts
    Primary modeled driverRelationship test: #14 → #13
-0.5 pts
Net local movement-0.54 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 baseline70.0
Target-market demandNot applicable to this operating model
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.5
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystemNot included in the score
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score69.46
Published local-market alignment69.5

Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.

Evidence confidence

City Modifier Evidence
Adequate
Factor Research Coverage
Strong
Franchise-profile completeness
Limited
Source-evidence confidence
Adequate
Geographic applicability
Limited
Overall evidence confidence
Moderate evidence confidence
Largest absolute effect
Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
Tested rank range
#11–#14

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 baseline70.0
Target-market demand+2.9
Property replacement-cycle demandNot applicable to this operating model
Competitive environmentNot included in the score
Labor and staffing friction-0.2
Transportation, routing, and parkingDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Real estate and site feasibilityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Sales and customer acquisitionNot included in the score
Referral ecosystem+0.3
Territory qualityDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Regulatory and operating frictionDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition
Full-precision calculated score72.99
Published local-market alignment73.0

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 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 13 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #4 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.

Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+1.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank13

What we observed

  • Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025218,428 people
  • Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue6,827,165,000 usd
  • Transportation And Warehousing Receipts/revenue8,947,622,000 usd

Concepts helped most

City WideFacility management
+2.9 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+2.5 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.4 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 WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #2–#6
#4 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#5 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#6 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#8 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#10 Aire ServModerately sensitive · tested #8–#10
#11 Rainbow International RestorationModerately sensitive · tested #9–#12
#12 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeModerately sensitive · tested #11–#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.

Score-changing factors

Factors that changed the calculated scores

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.

Factor impact among the highest-rated franchise conceptsDiverging dot plot showing nonzero factor score contributions for the top 14 concepts. Zero-point concept-factor pairs are omitted, and factors with no nonzero contributions are excluded.+3.0+1.50.0-1.5-3.0
Target-market demand
#1 City Wide · Target-market demand · +2.9 pts1#2 ActionCOACH · Target-market demand · +2.1 pts2#3 FASTSIGNS · Target-market demand · +2.4 pts3#4 Jan-Pro International · Target-market demand · +2.5 pts4#5 HomeSmiles · Target-market demand · +1.4 pts5#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Target-market demand · +0.4 pts6#7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Target-market demand · +0.2 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Target-market demand · +0.3 pts8#9 Tiger Adjusters · Target-market demand · +0.3 pts9#10 Aire Serv · Target-market demand · +0.4 pts10#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Target-market demand · +0.1 pts11
Property replacement-cycle demand
#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.6 pts6#7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.3 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.6 pts8#10 Aire Serv · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.5 pts10#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.4 pts11#12 Mister Sparky Electric · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.5 pts12#13 PuroClean · Property replacement-cycle demand · +0.4 pts13
Labor and staffing friction
#1 City Wide · Labor and staffing friction · -0.2 pts1#2 ActionCOACH · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts2#3 FASTSIGNS · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts3#4 Jan-Pro International · Labor and staffing friction · -0.7 pts4#5 HomeSmiles · Labor and staffing friction · -0.3 pts5#6 ZOOM DRAIN · Labor and staffing friction · -0.6 pts6#7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts7#8 Mr. Rooter · Labor and staffing friction · -0.6 pts8#9 Tiger Adjusters · Labor and staffing friction · -0.1 pts9#10 Aire Serv · Labor and staffing friction · -0.8 pts10#11 Rainbow International Restoration · Labor and staffing friction · -0.7 pts11#12 Mister Sparky Electric · Labor and staffing friction · -0.7 pts12#13 PuroClean · Labor and staffing friction · -0.6 pts13#14 Workout Anytime · Labor and staffing friction · -0.5 pts14
Referral ecosystem
#1 City Wide · Referral ecosystem · +0.3 pts1#2 ActionCOACH · Referral ecosystem · +0.4 pts2#3 FASTSIGNS · Referral ecosystem · +0.1 pts3
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [7] [8] [10] [12] [18] [17] [4]Property replacement-cycle demand: [13] [14] [4] [27] [29]Competitive environment: [10] [7] [6] [11]Labor and staffing friction: [15] [16] [17] [13] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [21] [22] [30] [31] [32] [6] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [19] [20] [17] [18] [23] [21] [4]Sales and customer acquisition: [10] [25] [26] [12] [7]Referral ecosystem: [12] [25] [26] [7] [10]Territory quality: [14] [21] [22] [23] [19] [20] [6]Regulatory and operating friction: [23] [24] [25] [28] [27] [5] [6]
View the chart data as a table
ConceptTarget-market demandProperty replacement-cycle demandLabor and staffing frictionReferral ecosystem
#1 City Wide+2.9 pts—-0.2 pts+0.3 pts
#2 ActionCOACH+2.1 pts—-0.1 pts+0.4 pts
#3 FASTSIGNS+2.4 pts—-0.1 pts+0.1 pts
#4 Jan-Pro International+2.5 pts—-0.7 pts—
#5 HomeSmiles+1.4 pts—-0.3 pts—
#6 ZOOM DRAIN+0.4 pts+0.6 pts-0.6 pts—
#7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors+0.2 pts+0.3 pts-0.1 pts—
#8 Mr. Rooter+0.3 pts+0.6 pts-0.6 pts—
#9 Tiger Adjusters+0.3 pts—-0.1 pts—
#10 Aire Serv+0.4 pts+0.5 pts-0.8 pts—
#11 Rainbow International Restoration+0.1 pts+0.4 pts-0.7 pts—
#12 Mister Sparky Electric—+0.5 pts-0.7 pts—
#13 PuroClean—+0.4 pts-0.6 pts—
#14 Workout Anytime——-0.5 pts—

Interpretation

How to interpret the result

City Wide, ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for FASTSIGNS, Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.

Category comparisons

Best franchise categories we assessed in Salt Lake City, Utah

Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.

Limited two-concept comparison

Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Salt Lake City, Utah

69.8

2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.8 to 69.8. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.8. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average.

Interpret cautiously: A 0.0-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.

Concepts compared
2
Score range
69.8–69.8
Category average
69.8
Rainbow International Restoration69.8
PuroClean69.8

Metric registry

The 33 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
MetricRaw valuePeriodGeographyRole in analysisSource
Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025218,428peoplePopulation estimate July 1, 2025; socioeconomic estimates primarily 2020-2024; business receipts 2022Salt Lake City, UtahUsed in scoring [7]
Population change from April 2020 base to July 2025 estimate9.4percentPopulation estimate July 1, 2025; socioeconomic estimates primarily 2020-2024; business receipts 2022Salt Lake City, UtahContext only [7]
Households in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate98,916households2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesSalt Lake City, UtahUsed in scoring [8] [9]
Housing units in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate107,629housing units2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimatesSalt Lake City, UtahContext only [8] [9]
Salt Lake City reports a business base greater than 20,000 businesses20,000businesses lower boundCurrent city business-development page accessed 2026-08-05Salt Lake City, UtahUsed in scoring [10]
Accommodation and food services sales1,534,734,000usdPopulation estimate July 1, 2025; socioeconomic estimates primarily 2020-2024; business receipts 2022Salt Lake City, UtahContext only [7]
Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue6,827,165,000usdPopulation estimate July 1, 2025; socioeconomic estimates primarily 2020-2024; business receipts 2022Salt Lake City, UtahUsed in scoring [7]
Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue8,947,622,000usdPopulation estimate July 1, 2025; socioeconomic estimates primarily 2020-2024; business receipts 2022Salt Lake City, UtahUsed in scoring [7]
University of Utah total enrollment38,261studentsAcademic year 2025-2026University of Utah, Salt Lake City campusUsed in scoring [12]
Share of city housing stock built before 196043.3percentHousing evidence primarily 2018-2022 ACS and 2024 city recordsSalt Lake City, UtahSupports modeled relationship [13]
Share of city housing stock built before 194029percentHousing evidence primarily 2018-2022 ACS and 2024 city recordsSalt Lake City, UtahSupports modeled relationship [13]
Owner-occupied units built before 196025,000housing unitsHousing evidence primarily 2018-2022 ACS and 2024 city recordsSalt Lake City, UtahSupports modeled relationship [13]
Housing units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities635housing unitsHousing evidence primarily 2018-2022 ACS and 2024 city recordsSalt Lake City, UtahSupports modeled relationship [13]
Housing units in multi-unit structures54.9percent2023 ACS and city district dataSalt Lake City, UtahContext only [14]
Housing units in structures with ten or more units35percent2023 ACS and city district dataSalt Lake City, UtahContext only [14]
Council-district housing mix varies materiallydistrict 4 share in 10 plus unit structures percent: 68.9; district 6 detached single family share percent: 74.9percent by district2023 ACS and city district dataSalt Lake City council districtsConditional relationship [14]
Utah unemployment rate3.6percentJune 2026UtahUsed in scoring [15]
Salt Lake City metropolitan unemployment rate reported in the office market brief3.7percentQ2 2026Salt Lake City metropolitan areaUsed in scoring [17]
DWS describes unemployment rates from 4.0 to 4.8 percent as broadly balancedminimum: 4; maximum: 4.8percent rangeCurrent DWS interpretive benchmark accessed 2026-08-05Utah labor marketsUsed in scoring [16]
Office vacancy reported by Cushman & Wakefield22.2percentQ2 2026Salt Lake City office marketConditional relationship [17]
Office market recorded more than 710,000 square feet of positive year-to-date absorption710,000square feet lower boundQ2 2026Salt Lake City metropolitan office marketContext only [18]
Industrial vacancy reported by CBRE7.2percentQ2 2026Salt Lake City industrial marketConditional relationship [19]
Direct industrial vacancy reported by Colliers4.79percentQ2 2026Salt Lake County industrial marketConditional relationship [20]
Flex product commands above-average rents and well-located industrial availability is limitedyesbooleanQ2 2026Salt Lake County industrial marketConditional relationship [20]
Paid-parking time limits are two hours during the day and four hours after 6 p.m. in covered areasdaytime limit hours: 2; after 6pm limit hours: 4hoursParking changes effective July 1, 2025Salt Lake City paid-parking areasConditional relationship [21]
Qualifying residential permit areas may use posted two-hour or no-parking restrictionsyesbooleanCurrent program rules accessed 2026-08-05Qualifying Salt Lake City permit-parking areasConditional relationship [22] [6]
Exterior changes and proposed demolitions in local historic districts and at landmarks are subject to design reviewyesbooleanCurrent district and review framework accessed 2026-08-05Designated Salt Lake City local historic districts and landmarksConditional relationship [23] [24] [6]
Salt Lake City and State of Utah solicitations use formal public procurement platformsyesbooleanCurrent procurement process accessed 2026-08-05Salt Lake City and State of Utah public-sector accountsSupports modeled relationship [25] [26]
Salt Lake Valley experiences recurring winter inversion conditions associated with elevated particulate concentrationsyesrecurring conditionLong-run Wasatch Front winter particulate researchSalt Lake Valley and Wasatch FrontContext only [27]
EPA redesignated the Salt Lake City PM2.5 area to attainment with a maintenance planyesregulatory statusPM2.5 redesignation effective 2025 with maintenance plan through at least 2035Salt Lake City PM2.5 areaContext only [28]
USGS identifies exposed Great Salt Lake dry lakebed dust as a potential pollutant source for nearby communitiesyesscientific findingOngoing research on exposed lakebed dustGreat Salt Lake and nearby Wasatch Front communitiesContext only [29]
600/700 North reconstruction and Jordan River bridge work are active through 2026yestemporary active conditionActive reconstruction through 2026600/700 North from 800 West to Redwood Road, Salt Lake CityConditional relationship [31] [30]
UDOT plans an I-15 reconstruction project from Farmington to Salt Lake Cityyesproposed projectPlanned corridor reconstruction; current project page accessed 2026-08-05I-15 from Farmington to Salt Lake CityContext only [32] [5]

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

01

Measure the city

Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.

02

Profile each operating model

Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.

03

Apply scoreable effects

Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.

04

Preserve conditional effects

Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.

05

Test rank sensitivity

Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.

06

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 72.99 after target-market demand +2.9 pts, referral ecosystem +0.3 pts, and labor and staffing friction -0.2 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 0.9.0 · Compiler 0.15.1-franchise-image-filter · Report generated August 19, 2026 (site timezone)

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. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.

Model history

  1. 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

Local evidence supporting this report

The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.

  1. 1
    Franchise-to-city operating-fit model definitionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    User-supplied controlling model
    Data period
    Model version 0.9.0-calibration
    Scope
    Model-wide
    Locator
    factors, operating_attribute_taxonomy, city_modifier_taxonomy, confidence and provenance controls
    Source tier
    Tier 0 · controlling internal taxonomy
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  2. 2
    Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    User-supplied structural example
    Data period
    Schema example reviewed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Example city only; conclusions not reused
    Locator
    top-level structure, field names, nesting, and data types
    Source tier
    Tier 0 · controlling internal structure
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  3. 3
    Compiler-ready city research JSON promptInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    User-supplied instructions
    Data period
    Target lock and research requirements current 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City, Utah target lock
    Locator
    entire prompt
    Source tier
    Tier 0 · controlling internal instructions
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  4. 4
    United States Structural Inefficiency and CRE Arbitrage AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Undated supplied synthesis reviewed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City section within a multi-city docket
    Locator
    Salt Lake City, Utah section, paragraphs 32-37
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  5. 5
    Forensic Audit Report: Structural Capital Constraints and Jurisdictional Risk ProfilesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.

    Used for: UDOT plans an I-15 reconstruction project from Farmington to Salt Lake City

    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Undated supplied synthesis reviewed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City section within a multi-city docket
    Locator
    Salt Lake City, Utah section, paragraphs 101-110
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  6. 6
    Franchise data - remake - Combine2 neighborhood research tableInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.

    Used for: Qualifying residential permit areas may use posted two-hour or no-parking restrictions and Exterior changes and proposed demolitions in local historic districts and at landmarks are subject to design review

    Publisher
    Supplied research material
    Data period
    Mixed neighborhood records reviewed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Sugar House, The Avenues, 9th and 9th, Yalecrest, Central City, and East Liberty Park records
    Locator
    Salt Lake City rows 7, 27, 47, 67, 87, and 107
    Source tier
    Tier 5 · supplied bespoke research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  7. 7
    Salt Lake City city, Utah — QuickFacts

    Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 base to July 2025 estimate, Accommodation and food services sales, Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue, and Transportation and warehousing receipts/revenue

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau
    Data period
    Population estimate July 1, 2025; socioeconomic estimates primarily 2020-2024; business receipts 2022
    Scope
    Salt Lake City city, Utah
    Locator
    population, housing, education, commuting, income, and 2022 economic receipts
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · federal government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  8. 8
    Salt Lake City city, Utah profile

    Used for: Households in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate and Housing units in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate

    Publisher
    U.S. Census Bureau data.census.gov
    Published
    September 11, 2025
    Data period
    2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates
    Scope
    Salt Lake City city, Utah
    Locator
    population, households, housing units, income, education, and employment profile
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · federal government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  9. 9
    Salt Lake City, UT profile data

    Used for: Households in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate and Housing units in the 2024 ACS one-year estimate

    Publisher
    Census Reporter
    Data period
    2024 American Community Survey 1-year estimates
    Scope
    Salt Lake City city, Utah
    Locator
    housing units, households, home value, mobility, education, and commute profile
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · recognized data interface
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  10. 10
    Business Development

    Used for: Salt Lake City reports a business base greater than 20,000 businesses

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
    Data period
    Current city business-development page accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City
    Locator
    business count and named industry clusters
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  11. 11
    Doing Business in Salt Lake City 2025
    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
    Published
    June 1, 2025
    Data period
    2025 city business environment guide
    Scope
    Salt Lake City
    Locator
    city business environment, industry, permitting, and resource overview
    Source tier
    Tier 2 · local government economic guide
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  12. 12
    University of Utah Analytics

    Used for: University of Utah total enrollment

    Publisher
    University of Utah
    Data period
    Academic year 2025-2026
    Scope
    University of Utah, Salt Lake City campus
    Locator
    total enrollment and faculty headcount
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · public university
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  13. 13
    Salt Lake City 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan

    Used for: Share of city housing stock built before 1960, Share of city housing stock built before 1940, Owner-occupied units built before 1960, and Housing units lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division
    Published
    September 1, 2025
    Data period
    Housing evidence primarily 2018-2022 ACS and 2024 city records
    Scope
    Salt Lake City
    Locator
    MA-20 housing stock, age, condition, and vacant/boarded building tables
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  14. 14
    Salt Lake City Data Book 2025

    Used for: Housing units in multi-unit structures, Housing units in structures with ten or more units, and Council-district housing mix varies materially

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City
    Published
    April 1, 2025
    Data period
    2023 ACS and city district data
    Scope
    Salt Lake City and council districts
    Locator
    housing structure by city and council district
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  15. 15
    Utah Employment Update

    Used for: Utah unemployment rate

    Publisher
    Utah Department of Workforce Services
    Published
    July 17, 2026
    Data period
    June 2026
    Scope
    Utah statewide with metropolitan labor context
    Locator
    employment growth and unemployment rate
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · state government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  16. 16
    County Unemployment Rate Interpretation

    Used for: DWS describes unemployment rates from 4.0 to 4.8 percent as broadly balanced

    Publisher
    Utah Department of Workforce Services
    Data period
    Current DWS interpretive benchmark accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Utah labor markets
    Locator
    interpretive unemployment-rate ranges and labor availability
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · state government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  17. 17
    Salt Lake City Office MarketBeat Q2 2026

    Used for: Salt Lake City metropolitan unemployment rate reported in the office market brief and Office vacancy reported by Cushman & Wakefield

    Publisher
    Cushman & Wakefield
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Q2 2026
    Scope
    Salt Lake City office market
    Locator
    market indicators, vacancy, employment, and unemployment
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · recognized industry research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  18. 18
    Suburban vs. Downtown Office Q2 2026

    Used for: Office market recorded more than 710,000 square feet of positive year-to-date absorption

    Publisher
    Colliers
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Q2 2026
    Scope
    Salt Lake City metropolitan office submarkets
    Locator
    vacancy trend, absorption, downtown/suburban comparison, and construction pipeline
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · recognized industry research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  19. 19
    Salt Lake City Industrial Figures Q2 2026

    Used for: Industrial vacancy reported by CBRE

    Publisher
    CBRE
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Q2 2026
    Scope
    Salt Lake City industrial market
    Locator
    vacancy, absorption, and construction pipeline
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · recognized industry research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  20. 20
    Salt Lake County Industrial Q2 2026

    Used for: Direct industrial vacancy reported by Colliers and Flex product commands above-average rents and well-located industrial availability is limited

    Publisher
    Colliers
    Published
    July 1, 2026
    Data period
    Q2 2026
    Scope
    Salt Lake County industrial market
    Locator
    direct vacancy, asking rent, flex-product premium, and well-located availability
    Source tier
    Tier 3 · recognized industry research
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  21. 21
    Parking Updates

    Used for: Paid-parking time limits are two hours during the day and four hours after 6 p.m. in covered areas

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Transportation Division
    Published
    July 1, 2025
    Data period
    Parking changes effective July 1, 2025
    Scope
    Salt Lake City paid-parking areas
    Locator
    meter hours, time limits, event/nightlife rationale, and free-day provisions
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  22. 22
    Residential Permit Parking Program

    Used for: Qualifying residential permit areas may use posted two-hour or no-parking restrictions

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Transportation Division
    Data period
    Current program rules accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Qualifying residential permit-parking areas in Salt Lake City
    Locator
    eligibility and posted two-hour or no-parking restrictions
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  23. 23
    Local Historic Districts and Landmarks

    Used for: Exterior changes and proposed demolitions in local historic districts and at landmarks are subject to design review

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Historic Preservation
    Data period
    Current district and review framework accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Designated Salt Lake City local historic districts and landmarks
    Locator
    district list and exterior-change/demolition design-review requirements
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  24. 24
    Historic Preservation Design Guidelines and Ordinance Regulations

    Used for: Exterior changes and proposed demolitions in local historic districts and at landmarks are subject to design review

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Historic Preservation
    Data period
    Current guidance accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City locally designated historic properties
    Locator
    maintenance, repair, alteration, and new-construction design guidance
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  25. 25
    Salt Lake City Purchasing and Contracts

    Used for: Salt Lake City and State of Utah solicitations use formal public procurement platforms

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City Finance Department
    Data period
    Current procurement process accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City government procurement
    Locator
    Utah Public Procurement Place solicitation process
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  26. 26
    State of Utah Division of Purchasing and General Services

    Used for: Salt Lake City and State of Utah solicitations use formal public procurement platforms

    Publisher
    State of Utah
    Data period
    Current procurement portal accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    State of Utah public procurement
    Locator
    vendor and solicitation resources
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · state government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  27. 27
    Winter Inversion Study

    Used for: Salt Lake Valley experiences recurring winter inversion conditions associated with elevated particulate concentrations

    Publisher
    Utah Department of Environmental Quality
    Data period
    Long-run Wasatch Front winter particulate research
    Scope
    Wasatch Front valleys including Salt Lake Valley
    Locator
    winter inversion and particulate-matter conditions
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · state government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  28. 28
    EPA declares Salt Lake City and Provo areas meet air quality standards after 15 years

    Used for: EPA redesignated the Salt Lake City PM2.5 area to attainment with a maintenance plan

    Publisher
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Published
    December 18, 2025
    Data period
    PM2.5 redesignation effective 2025 with maintenance plan through at least 2035
    Scope
    Salt Lake City PM2.5 area
    Locator
    attainment redesignation and maintenance plan
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · federal government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  29. 29
    Dust from Great Salt Lake dry lakebed: a possible health risk

    Used for: USGS identifies exposed Great Salt Lake dry lakebed dust as a potential pollutant source for nearby communities

    Publisher
    U.S. Geological Survey
    Data period
    Ongoing research on exposed lakebed dust
    Scope
    Great Salt Lake and nearby Wasatch Front communities
    Locator
    dust-source and pollutant-contribution findings
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · federal science agency
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  30. 30
    Street Projects

    Used for: 600/700 North reconstruction and Jordan River bridge work are active through 2026

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City MyStreet
    Data period
    Current project index accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    Salt Lake City street projects
    Locator
    active street rebuilds, safety projects, maintenance, and utility projects
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  31. 31
    600/700 North Reconstruction

    Used for: 600/700 North reconstruction and Jordan River bridge work are active through 2026

    Publisher
    Salt Lake City
    Data period
    Active reconstruction through 2026
    Scope
    600/700 North from 800 West to Redwood Road, Salt Lake City
    Locator
    reconstruction schedule and Jordan River bridge closure
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · local government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026
  32. 32
    I-15 Farmington to Salt Lake City Reconstruction

    Used for: UDOT plans an I-15 reconstruction project from Farmington to Salt Lake City

    Publisher
    Utah Department of Transportation
    Data period
    Planned corridor reconstruction; current project page accessed 2026-08-05
    Scope
    I-15 corridor from Farmington to Salt Lake City
    Locator
    planned corridor features and project overview
    Source tier
    Tier 1 · state government
    Accessed
    August 5, 2026

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.

Request a private franchise review
View methodologyView source registry
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.

pipelinefranchises.com

Recently updated pages: Fargo Gulfport Aurora Santa Ana Minneapolis Spokane San Diego Dayton New Orleans Knoxville

Twenty Twenty-Five

Take Free Franchise Match Quiz