66.5 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in San Francisco, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for San Francisco, California. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Route and curb productivity pressure was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
21Sources used
17Primary sources
32Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.1 points average among 12 affected concepts
1.6 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for San Francisco, California
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and HomeSmiles 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 0.9 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. Jan-Pro International was especially relationship-sensitive: removing frontline labor pressure moved it from #7 to #3 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 | 71.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.9 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 68.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 67.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -2.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 67.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -2.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 66.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in San Francisco, California
Large active business-location base supports local commercial account demand
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period: 363,970 households. [1] [6]
Large pre-1940 and multifamily building base supports repair demand while increasing system and access complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [3]
Limited curb capacity, posted loading rules, and permit conditions constrain high-stop and delivery operations
This relationship affected 14 concepts and reduced 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Commercial loading zones impose vehicle, active-loading, payment, and time-limit conditions: typical time limit minutes: 30; commercial plate generally required: yes; meter payment generally required: yes; active loading required: yes; six wheel zones restricted to six wheel trucks: yes rule conditions. [14] [15]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large active business-location base supports local commercial account demand1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Large pre-1940 and multifamily building base supports repair demand while increasing system and access complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Housing units built in 1939 or earlier: units: 187,977; total units: 414,553; share: 45.345 housing units and percent [4]
- Housing units in buildings with two or more units: units: 328,441; share: 77.653 housing units and percent [3]
- Housing units in buildings with 20 or more units: units: 165,805; share: 39 housing units and percent [3]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Local wage floor and metro frontline wage premiums raise staffing cost exposure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
Construction and repair occupations carry substantial metro wage premiums1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Limited curb capacity, posted loading rules, and permit conditions constrain high-stop and delivery operations1 modeled effect
Route and curb productivity pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Covered buildings have recurring energy reporting and audit obligations that also support retrofit-service demand3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Existing Buildings Ordinance coverage thresholds and recurring requirements: nonresidential minimum conditioned sqft: 10,000; multifamily minimum conditioned sqft: 50,000; benchmarking frequency: annual; benchmarking due month day: May 1; commercial energy audit frequency years: 5 thresholds and frequency [16]
- Renewable-electricity requirement for large commercial buildings: minimum gross sqft: 50,000; renewable electricity share required: 100; transition deadline: 2030-12-31; documentation due: 2031-04-01 threshold and deadlines [16]
- Housing units in buildings with two or more units: units: 328,441; share: 77.653 housing units and percent [3]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle 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 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.9
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.8 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.88 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 | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.76 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 | +1.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.2 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.76 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.6 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.68 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.42 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 | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.5 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.3 |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.58 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.9 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.9 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.66 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.9 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.34 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.0
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.4 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.95 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.05 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.0 |
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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.5 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +1.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.76 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 | +1.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.24 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#7
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.1
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +1.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.3 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.86 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.14 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#11
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.1
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.8 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Target-market demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.94 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.06 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Strong
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.8
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.3 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -2.0 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -2.0 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.83 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.8 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.8 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.8 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.45 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 baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.8 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -1.3 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.1 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.46 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 | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -1.3 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.54 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.5
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.4 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.50 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.50 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.5 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.4
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.5 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -2.3 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -1.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.60 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -1.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.4 |
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
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Adequate
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#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 | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.88 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.9 |
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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #6 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted12 of 14
Average among affected+1.1 pts
Average across all concepts+0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Population Change From July 2024 To July 20250.625 percent
- Estimated Households In The 2020 2024 Period363,970 households
- Net Housing Unit Additions Completed In 20252,669 housing units
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.5 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #8 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+1.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.1 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #7 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.6 pts
Average across all concepts-1.6 pts
Concepts changing rank9
What we observed
- Housing Units Built In 1939 Or Earlierunits: 187,977; total units: 414,553; share: 45.345 housing units and percent
- Mean Hourly Wages For Operating Relevant Major Occupational Groupsall occupations: 48.19; food preparation and serving: 22.91; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 25.46; sales and related: 36.06; office and administrative support: 32.96; construction and extraction: 43.66; installation maintenance and repair: 38.95; transportation and material moving: 30.45 usd per hour
- Local Mean Hourly Wage Premiums Over Corresponding U.s. Major Occupational Groupsall occupations: 43.68; food preparation and serving: 28.28; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 29.5; office and administrative support: 32.96; construction and extraction: 38.96; installation maintenance and repair: 27.96; transportation and material moving: 27.09 percent above us mean
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.8 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-2.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-2.4 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.4 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #10 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.9 pts
Average across all concepts-0.9 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Commercial Loading Zones Impose Vehicle, Active Loading, Payment, And Time Limit Conditionstypical time limit minutes: 30; commercial plate generally required: yes; meter payment generally required: yes; active loading required: yes; six wheel zones restricted to six wheel trucks: yes rule conditions
- Contractor Parking Permit Conditions And Fiscal Year 2026 2027 Feeannual fee: 3,197; six month fee: 1,598; commercial plate required: yes; eligible businesses: California-licensed construction or pest-control trades; meter and rpp time limit exemptions: yes; yellow six wheel loading zone use prohibited: yes; principal business address exclusion: within 1,500 feet or three blocks, whichever is greater usd and conditions
- Sfmta Treats Curb Space As A Limited Resource With Neighborhood Specific Priorities And Greater Goods Loading Need Downtown And On Commercial Corridorsdifferent neighborhoods have different needs: yes; goods loading need higher in downtown and commercial corridors: yes; growing loading needs are policy objective: yes policy findings
Concepts challenged most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-2.0 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.8 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-1.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-1.4 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #12 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted2 of 14
Average among affected-0.8 pts
Average across all concepts-0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Retail Availability And Rent Performance Varied Materially By Formatlive work play average asking rent: 27.8; rent unit: usd per square foot per year; office adjacent condition: higher availability and slower pricing growth; high street five year rent growth: nearly flat mixed
- San Francisco Office Market Conditions In Q2 2026vacancy rate: 29.2; net absorption sqft: 963,980; average asking rate: 72.96; asking rate basis: annual full service gross mixed
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.1 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.5 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
0.0 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #3 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Adults Age 25 And Older With A Bachelor’s Degree Or Higher60.3 percent
- Employment Shares In Selected Professional Occupational Groupsmanagement: 9.4; business and financial operations: 8.7; computer and mathematical: 6.6 percent of msa employment
- Active Registered Business Locations Displayed By Datasf126,000 business locations approximate
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #12 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank7
What we observed
- Sfmta Treats Curb Space As A Limited Resource With Neighborhood Specific Priorities And Greater Goods Loading Need Downtown And On Commercial Corridorsdifferent neighborhoods have different needs: yes; goods loading need higher in downtown and commercial corridors: yes; growing loading needs are policy objective: yes policy findings
- Formula Retail Is Subject To Conditional Use Review Or Prohibition In Specified Districtsformula retail threshold: 11 or more other retail establishments in operation or approved worldwide; conditional use in some districts: yes; prohibited in some districts: yes rule conditions
- Retail Availability And Rent Performance Varied Materially By Formatlive work play average asking rent: 27.8; rent unit: usd per square foot per year; office adjacent condition: higher availability and slower pricing growth; high street five year rent growth: nearly flat mixed
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHStable · tested #1–#2
#3 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#6 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#7 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #4–#7
#8 Mister Sparky ElectricModerately sensitive · tested #8–#11
#9 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#10 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#12 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #8–#14
#13 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#14 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [1] [2] [3] [5] [10] [12]Property replacement-cycle demand: [3] [4] [16] [20]Competitive environment: [5] [1] [19]Labor and staffing friction: [6] [7] [8] [9] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [13] [14] [15]Real estate and site feasibility: [10] [11] [12] [17] [18] [19] [20]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [1] [6]Referral ecosystem: [5] [6] [1] [3]Territory quality: [10] [11] [12] [13] [19] [1]Regulatory and operating friction: [7] [16] [17] [18] [19] [14] [15] [20] [21]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.8 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.1 pts | — | +0.8 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts | -0.1 pts | — | +0.6 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +1.6 pts | — | -1.4 pts | -0.5 pts | — | +0.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +1.7 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.6 pts | -0.5 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.9 pts | +0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | -0.9 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #6 Tiger Adjusters | +0.4 pts | — | -0.5 pts | -0.5 pts | — | — | -0.4 pts |
| #7 Jan-Pro International | +1.6 pts | — | -2.5 pts | -0.6 pts | — | +0.2 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #8 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +1.2 pts | -2.6 pts | -1.3 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Aire Serv | +0.9 pts | +1.1 pts | -2.8 pts | -1.6 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.9 pts | +0.6 pts | -2.3 pts | -2.0 pts | — | +0.4 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | +0.8 pts | +0.6 pts | -2.4 pts | -1.8 pts | — | — | -0.7 pts |
| #12 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | — | -1.4 pts | -0.2 pts | -1.1 pts | — | -1.3 pts |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.5 pts | -2.4 pts | -1.4 pts | — | +0.5 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #14 PuroClean | — | +0.5 pts | -2.3 pts | -1.6 pts | — | +0.5 pts | -0.6 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, HomeSmiles 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in San Francisco, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
66.5Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in San Francisco, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 66.4 to 66.5. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 66.5. Referral ecosystem added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 2.4 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.1-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 66.4–66.5
- Category average
- 66.5
Rainbow International Restoration66.5
PuroClean66.4
Metric registry
The 32 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 826,079people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS estimates; 2022 economic data; 2023 business reference year where displayed | San Francisco, California | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025 | -5.972percent | April 1, 2020 estimates base through July 1, 2025 | San Francisco, California | Context only | [2] |
| Population change from July 2024 to July 2025 | 0.625percent | April 1, 2020 estimates base through July 1, 2025 | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [2] |
| Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period | 363,970households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS estimates; 2022 economic data; 2023 business reference year where displayed | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars | 140,970usd 2024 | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS estimates; 2022 economic data; 2023 business reference year where displayed | San Francisco, California | Context only | [1] |
| Adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher | 60.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS estimates; 2022 economic data; 2023 business reference year where displayed | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Active registered business locations displayed by DataSF | 126,000business locations approximate | Active registration status as updated July 20, 2026 | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Total dwelling units at the end of 2025 | 422,958housing units | Calendar year 2025 and year-end 2025 housing stock | San Francisco, California | Context only | [3] |
| Net housing-unit additions completed in 2025 | 2,669housing units | Calendar year 2025 and year-end 2025 housing stock | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Year-over-year increase in the city housing stock during 2025 | 0.6percent | Calendar year 2025 and year-end 2025 housing stock | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Housing units in buildings with two or more units | units: 328,441; share: 77.653housing units and percent | Calendar year 2025 and year-end 2025 housing stock | San Francisco, California | Supports modeled relationship | [3] |
| Housing units in buildings with 20 or more units | units: 165,805; share: 39housing units and percent | Calendar year 2025 and year-end 2025 housing stock | San Francisco, California | Supports modeled relationship | [3] |
| Housing units built in 1939 or earlier | units: 187,977; total units: 414,553; share: 45.345housing units and percent | 2022 ACS 1-year estimates | San Francisco County, California | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mean hourly wages for operating-relevant major occupational groups | all occupations: 48.19; food preparation and serving: 22.91; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 25.46; sales and related: 36.06; office and administrative support: 32.96; construction and extraction: 43.66; installation maintenance and repair: 38.95; transportation and material moving: 30.45usd per hour | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Local mean-hourly-wage premiums over corresponding U.S. major occupational groups | all occupations: 43.68; food preparation and serving: 28.28; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance: 29.5; office and administrative support: 32.96; construction and extraction: 38.96; installation maintenance and repair: 27.96; transportation and material moving: 27.09percent above us mean | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Employment shares in selected professional occupational groups | management: 9.4; business and financial operations: 8.7; computer and mathematical: 6.6percent of msa employment | May 2025 | San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| San Francisco minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 | 19.61usd per hour | Current ordinance accessed July 2026 | San Francisco, California | Used in scoring | [7] [8] |
| California minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 16.9usd per hour | Rate effective January 1, 2026 | California | Context only | [9] |
| San Francisco minimum-wage premium over the California statewide rate | difference: 2.71; premium: 16.036usd per hour and percent | Rate effective July 1, 2026 | San Francisco compared with California | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| San Francisco office market conditions in Q2 2026 | vacancy rate: 29.2; net absorption sqft: 963,980; average asking rate: 72.96; asking rate basis: annual full service grossmixed | Second quarter 2026 | San Francisco office market | Used in scoring | [10] |
| San Francisco industrial market conditions in Q1 2026 | vacancy rate: 8.3; net absorption sqft: 155,156; average asking rate monthly: 1.82; asking rate basis: monthly industrial gross; annualized asking rate: 21.84mixed | First quarter 2026 | San Francisco industrial market | Context only | [11] |
| Difference between reported office and industrial vacancy rates | 20.9percentage points | Second quarter 2026 | San Francisco office Q2 2026 versus industrial Q1 2026 | Used in scoring | [10] [11] |
| Retail availability and rent performance varied materially by format | live work play average asking rent: 27.8; rent unit: usd per square foot per year; office adjacent condition: higher availability and slower pricing growth; high street five year rent growth: nearly flatmixed | Fourth quarter 2024 | San Francisco high-street, office-adjacent, and live-work-play retail districts | Used in scoring | [12] |
| SFMTA treats curb space as a limited resource with neighborhood-specific priorities and greater goods-loading need downtown and on commercial corridors | different neighborhoods have different needs: yes; goods loading need higher in downtown and commercial corridors: yes; growing loading needs are policy objective: yespolicy findings | Citywide policy framework; current implementation context reviewed July 2026 | San Francisco curb network | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Commercial loading zones impose vehicle, active-loading, payment, and time-limit conditions | typical time limit minutes: 30; commercial plate generally required: yes; meter payment generally required: yes; active loading required: yes; six wheel zones restricted to six wheel trucks: yesrule conditions | Current rules accessed July 2026 | San Francisco commercial loading zones | Used in scoring | [14] |
| Contractor parking permit conditions and fiscal-year 2026-2027 fee | annual fee: 3,197; six month fee: 1,598; commercial plate required: yes; eligible businesses: California-licensed construction or pest-control trades; meter and rpp time limit exemptions: yes; yellow six wheel loading zone use prohibited: yes; principal business address exclusion: within 1,500 feet or three blocks, whichever is greaterusd and conditions | Fiscal year 2026-2027 fee and current permit rules | Eligible contractor vehicles in San Francisco | Used in scoring | [15] |
| Existing Buildings Ordinance coverage thresholds and recurring requirements | nonresidential minimum conditioned sqft: 10,000; multifamily minimum conditioned sqft: 50,000; benchmarking frequency: annual; benchmarking due month day: May 1; commercial energy audit frequency years: 5thresholds and frequency | Current requirements accessed July 2026 | Covered San Francisco nonresidential and multifamily buildings | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Renewable-electricity requirement for large commercial buildings | minimum gross sqft: 50,000; renewable electricity share required: 100; transition deadline: 2030-12-31; documentation due: 2031-04-01threshold and deadlines | Current requirements accessed July 2026 | San Francisco commercial buildings at or above the specified size | Supports modeled relationship | [16] |
| Sign installation or material alteration generally requires a permit and standards vary by zoning and special sign district | permit required for: install, replace, reconstruct, expand, intensify, relocate; district specific rules: yesrule conditions | Guidance last updated September 3, 2025; accessed July 2026 | San Francisco | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| Covered storefronts must maintain unobstructed visibility into the store | minimum visibility: 75; limited exceptions apply: yes; code section: Planning Code Section 145.1percent and conditions | Guidance last updated July 23, 2026 | San Francisco | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Formula retail is subject to conditional-use review or prohibition in specified districts | formula retail threshold: 11 or more other retail establishments in operation or approved worldwide; conditional use in some districts: yes; prohibited in some districts: yesrule conditions | Current controls accessed July 2026 | San Francisco | Used in scoring | [19] |
| Slope-protection review applies only where geographic exposure and project-scope triggers are met | geographic triggers: earthquake-induced landslide zone, average slope greater than 25 percent; project triggers: new structure with more than 1,000 square feet of roof area, addition exceeding 500 square feet, shoring, underpinning, grading exceeding 50 cubic yards, other substantial slope impactconditional thresholds | Current project-trigger framework reviewed July 2026 | San Francisco | Context only | [20] [21] |
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 71.88 after target-market demand +1.8 pts, referral ecosystem +0.8 pts, labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts, territory quality -0.1 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1QuickFacts: San Francisco city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Estimated households in the 2020-2024 period, Median household income in 2024 dollars, and Adults age 25 and older with a bachelor’s degree or higher
- 2Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for Incorporated Places in California: April 1, 2020 to July 1, 2025
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimates base to July 2025, and Population change from July 2024 to July 2025
- 3Housing Inventory 2025
Used for: Total dwelling units at the end of 2025, Net housing-unit additions completed in 2025, Year-over-year increase in the city housing stock during 2025, Housing units in buildings with two or more units, and Housing units in buildings with 20 or more units
- 4DP04: Selected Housing Characteristics
Used for: Housing units built in 1939 or earlier
- 5Active Business Locations
Used for: Active registered business locations displayed by DataSF
- 6Occupational Employment and Wages in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for operating-relevant major occupational groups, Local mean-hourly-wage premiums over corresponding U.S. major occupational groups, and Employment shares in selected professional occupational groups
- 7San Francisco Labor and Employment Code — Minimum Wage Ordinance
Used for: San Francisco minimum wage effective July 1, 2026
- 8San Francisco Announces 2026 Minimum Wage Increases
Used for: San Francisco minimum wage effective July 1, 2026 and San Francisco minimum-wage premium over the California statewide rate
- 9Minimum Wage
Used for: California minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 and San Francisco minimum-wage premium over the California statewide rate
- 10San Francisco Office Figures Q2 2026
Used for: San Francisco office market conditions in Q2 2026 and Difference between reported office and industrial vacancy rates
- 11San Francisco Industrial Figures Q1 2026
Used for: San Francisco industrial market conditions in Q1 2026 and Difference between reported office and industrial vacancy rates
- 122025 Retail Rent Dynamics
Used for: Retail availability and rent performance varied materially by format
- 13Curb Management Strategy
Used for: SFMTA treats curb space as a limited resource with neighborhood-specific priorities and greater goods-loading need downtown and on commercial corridors
- 14Loading and Short-Term Parking FAQs
Used for: Commercial loading zones impose vehicle, active-loading, payment, and time-limit conditions
- 15Contractor Parking Permits
Used for: Contractor parking permit conditions and fiscal-year 2026-2027 fee
- 16San Francisco’s Existing Buildings Ordinance
Used for: Existing Buildings Ordinance coverage thresholds and recurring requirements and Renewable-electricity requirement for large commercial buildings
- 17Signs
Used for: Sign installation or material alteration generally requires a permit and standards vary by zoning and special sign district
- 18Standards for Storefront Transparency
Used for: Covered storefronts must maintain unobstructed visibility into the store
- 19Chain Stores
Used for: Formula retail is subject to conditional-use review or prohibition in specified districts
- 20Slope Protection Act
Used for: Slope-protection review applies only where geographic exposure and project-scope triggers are met
- 21PermitSF Legislation
Used for: Slope-protection review applies only where geographic exposure and project-scope triggers are met
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.