67.6 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in San Jose, California
We compared 14 franchise concepts for San Jose, California. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition 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
24Sources used
16Primary sources
25Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.8 points average among 11 affected concepts
1.7 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 12 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for San Jose, California
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 0.9 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1.6 points on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #13 to #9 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 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.8 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 68.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -2.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 68.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -2.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 67.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -2.9 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in San Jose, California
Large resident, household, retail, and service-economy demand base
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 0.9 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Household and population-density measures: households: 328,550; persons per household: 2.97; population per square mile 2020: 5,684.1 mixed household and density measures. [5]
High skilled-trade and maintenance wages raise technician recruiting pressure
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mean hourly wages and employment shares for construction and maintenance occupations: construction extraction usd per hour: 45.42; construction extraction employment share percent: 3.4; installation maintenance repair usd per hour: 39.42; installation maintenance repair employment share percent: 2.2 mixed wage and employment share. [8]
San José has a city building-performance ordinance with 2026 benchmarking and Beyond Benchmarking obligations
The ordinance is not a general citywide operating penalty or demand guarantee. It applies to covered buildings at or above 20,000 square feet and can require benchmarking, performance demonstration, audit, retrocommissioning, or upgrades according to the building and cohort. The same threshold can create compliance burden for a franchise occupying a covered facility and qualified service demand for energy-retrofit, HVAC, or electrical providers serving covered owners. [10] [11]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large resident, household, retail, and service-economy demand base1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Building Performance Ordinance creates size- and cohort-gated compliance work2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Building Performance Ordinance benchmarking threshold and 2026 reporting cycle: minimum covered building size sqft: 20,000; reporting deadline: 2026-05-01; reporting data year: 2,025 threshold and date [10]
- Beyond Benchmarking compliance pathways for assigned covered buildings: demonstrate satisfactory performance, energy or water audit, retrocommissioning, targeted efficiency upgrades compliance pathways [11]
Facility compliance burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Energy-retrofit service demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
High statutory and market wages create frontline staffing pressure1 modeled effect
Frontline labor pressureLabor and staffing friction
High skilled-trade and maintenance wages raise technician recruiting pressure1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Large public-university presence and municipal procurement create institutional account opportunities with location and sales-cycle gates3 local facts · 3 modeled effects · 3 sources
- San José State University fall 2025 enrollment: enrollment approximate: 40,000; year over year change percent: 8 students and percent [19]
- City procurement portal publishes opportunities for services, supplies, equipment, technology, construction, and consulting: public opportunity categories: services, supplies, equipment, technology, construction, consulting [24]
- SJSU academic calendar includes fall, spring, and summer terms: academic year start: 2025-08-18; academic year end: 2026-05-22; summer term listed: yes calendar dates and status [20]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Campus-contained demand constraintTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
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 alignment71.6
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.60 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 | +2.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.5
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +1.5 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.5 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.47 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.47 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.8 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.97 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 | +1.8 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.97 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#5
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.1 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 |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.22 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 | +0.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.78 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.2 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 pts | |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.48 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.52 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +1.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.7 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 pts | |
| Target-market demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.65 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.1 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.35 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#7
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.8 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.5 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 |
| -2.5 pts |
| Target-market demand | +1.8 pts | |
| Net local movement | -0.72 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +1.8 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#14
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.80 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 | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.20 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#8
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.0
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.98 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#9
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.8
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.9 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.9 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.21 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 | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.9 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.79 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.6
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +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
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 | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.64 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.6
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.44 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.56 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#12
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.2 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -2.7 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 factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -2.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.45 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -2.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.55 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment67.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -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 |
| Target-market demand |
| -1.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -2.61 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 | -1.2 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 67.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 67.4 |
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
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#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 | +2.1 |
| 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 | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model effectPositive local support
Target-market demand
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 11 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted11 of 14
Average among affected+0.8 pts
Average across all concepts+0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Resident Population Estimate On July 1, 2025989,814 people
- Household And Population Density Measureshouseholds: 328,550; persons per household: 2.97; population per square mile 2020: 5,684.1 mixed household and density measures
- Median Household Income And Housing Cost Indicatorsmedian household income usd: 146,427; median owner cost with mortgage usd minimum: 4,000; median gross rent usd: 2,669
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+2.1 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+1.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+1.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+1.1 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.2 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Property replacement-cycle demand
We compared the age and condition of relevant property systems with the services each concept is actually equipped to provide.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 5 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #10 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.2 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank5
What we observed
- Owner Occupied Housing Unit Rate55.8 percent
- City Transformation During The 1960s And 1970s From An Agricultural Landscape To A Major Urban And Technology Centerprimary transition decades: 1960s, 1970s historical period
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.4 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.3 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.2 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.1 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, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #7 to #2, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-1.7 pts
Average across all concepts-1.7 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Mean Hourly Wages For Major Frontline Occupational Groupsfood preparation and serving usd per hour: 23.52; building and grounds cleaning maintenance usd per hour: 25.28; office and administrative support usd per hour: 34.22; transportation and material moving usd per hour: 27.5
- Mean Hourly Wages And Employment Shares For Construction And Maintenance Occupationsconstruction extraction usd per hour: 45.42; construction extraction employment share percent: 3.4; installation maintenance repair usd per hour: 39.42; installation maintenance repair employment share percent: 2.2 mixed wage and employment share
- San José Minimum Wage Effective January 1, 202618.45 usd per hour
Concepts challenged most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-2.9 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-2.7 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
-2.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
-2.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-2.5 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
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#3 FASTSIGNSModerately sensitive · tested #3–#5
#4 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#5 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#6 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #5–#7
#7 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#14
#8 ZOOM DRAINStable · tested #7–#8
#9 Mr. RooterStable · tested #8–#9
#10 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#11 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#12 Rainbow International RestorationStable · tested #11–#12
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #6–#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: [5] [7] [17] [19] [20] [24] [2] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [5] [7] [10] [11] [15] [16] [2]Competitive environment: [5] [24] [2] [4]Labor and staffing friction: [8] [9] [2] [3]Transportation, routing, and parking: [5] [12] [13] [14] [4]Real estate and site feasibility: [17] [18] [10] [12] [13] [15] [16] [21] [22] [2]Sales and customer acquisition: [5] [19] [24] [2]Referral ecosystem: [19] [24] [5] [4]Territory quality: [17] [18] [13] [15] [16] [22] [6] [4]Regulatory and operating friction: [10] [11] [21] [22] [15] [16] [23] [9] [3] [4]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +2.1 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +1.5 pts | — | -0.1 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +1.8 pts | — | -0.8 pts |
| #4 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +0.1 pts | +0.1 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #5 Tiger Adjusters | +0.2 pts | — | -0.7 pts |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +1.1 pts | — | -1.7 pts |
| #7 Jan-Pro International | +1.8 pts | — | -2.5 pts |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | +0.4 pts | +0.3 pts | -2.4 pts |
| #9 Mr. Rooter | +0.3 pts | +0.3 pts | -2.5 pts |
| #10 Aire Serv | +0.3 pts | +0.4 pts | -2.9 pts |
| #11 PuroClean | — | +0.1 pts | -2.4 pts |
| #12 Rainbow International Restoration | — | +0.1 pts | -2.6 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.2 pts | -2.7 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -1.2 pts | — | -1.4 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 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors, Tiger Adjusters, Jan-Pro International; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in San Jose, California
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
67.6Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in San Jose, California
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 67.6 to 67.6. PuroClean ranked highest at 67.6. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.1 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 2.5 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
- 67.6–67.6
- Category average
- 67.6
PuroClean67.6
Rainbow International Restoration67.6
Metric registry
The 25 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 | 989,814people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Context only | [5] |
| Household and population-density measures | households: 328,550; persons per household: 2.97; population per square mile 2020: 5,684.1mixed household and density measures | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Median household income and housing-cost indicators | median household income usd: 146,427; median owner cost with mortgage usd minimum: 4,000; median gross rent usd: 2,669usd | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Owner-occupied housing-unit rate | 55.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Selected city business sales and receipts in 2022 | retail sales usd thousands: 22,077,409; retail sales per capita usd: 22,711; accommodation food sales usd thousands: 3,377,116; healthcare social assistance receipts usd thousands: 7,237,932; transportation warehousing receipts usd thousands: 2,176,603usd and usd thousands | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Mean travel time to work | 27.3minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 demographic, housing, income, and commuting measures; 2022 economic measures | San Jose, California | Context only | [5] |
| Regional Housing Needs Allocation in the 2023-2031 Housing Element | base allocation units: 62,200; additional reallocated units: 3,095housing units | 2023-2031 planning period; certified Housing Element as of January 29, 2024 | San Jose, California | Context only | [7] |
| City transformation during the 1960s and 1970s from an agricultural landscape to a major urban and technology center | primary transition decades: 1960s, 1970shistorical period | General Plan text updated August 29, 2025 | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Mean hourly wages for major frontline occupational groups | food preparation and serving usd per hour: 23.52; building and grounds cleaning maintenance usd per hour: 25.28; office and administrative support usd per hour: 34.22; transportation and material moving usd per hour: 27.5usd per hour | May 2025 | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Mean hourly wages and employment shares for construction and maintenance occupations | construction extraction usd per hour: 45.42; construction extraction employment share percent: 3.4; installation maintenance repair usd per hour: 39.42; installation maintenance repair employment share percent: 2.2mixed wage and employment share | May 2025 | San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California | Used in scoring | [8] |
| San José minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | 18.45usd per hour | Rate effective January 1, 2026 | San Jose, California | Used in scoring | [9] |
| San Jose office-submarket conditions in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 43,770,161; direct vacancy percent: 17.5; total vacancy percent: 19.3; availability percent: 20.3; quarterly net absorption sqft: -264,371; year to date net absorption sqft: -155,105; average asking rent usd per sqft per month fsg: 4.02mixed cre measures | Second quarter 2026 | San Jose office submarket | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| San Jose industrial-submarket conditions in Q2 2026 | inventory sqft: 26,895,586; direct vacancy percent: 9.6; total vacancy percent: 10.3; quarterly net absorption sqft: 9,263; year to date leasing activity sqft: 1,303,856; average asking rent usd per sqft per month nnn: 1.74mixed cre measures | Second quarter 2026 | San Jose industrial submarket | Conditional relationship | [18] |
| Building Performance Ordinance benchmarking threshold and 2026 reporting cycle | minimum covered building size sqft: 20,000; reporting deadline: 2026-05-01; reporting data year: 2,025threshold and date | 2026 reporting cycle using 2025 building data | Covered commercial and multifamily buildings in San José | Supports modeled relationship | [10] |
| Beyond Benchmarking compliance pathways for assigned covered buildings | demonstrate satisfactory performance, energy or water audit, retrocommissioning, targeted efficiency upgradescompliance pathways | Current five-year compliance cohort framework accessed August 2026 | San José buildings assigned to Beyond Benchmarking cohorts | Supports modeled relationship | [11] |
| Public-street vehicle parking limit without movement | 72hours | Current municipal parking rules accessed August 2026 | San Jose, California | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Residential permit-parking zones require zone-specific permits or guest authorization for many service-provider vehicles | zone specific: yes; personal service vehicle may require guest permit: yes; on duty emergency or e plated vehicle exemptions exist: yesprogram conditions | Current active-zone framework accessed August 2026 | Active residential permit-parking zones in San José | Conditional relationship | [13] [14] |
| San José State University fall 2025 enrollment | enrollment approximate: 40,000; year over year change percent: 8students and percent | Fall 2025 enrollment | San José State University | Supports modeled relationship | [19] |
| SJSU academic calendar includes fall, spring, and summer terms | academic year start: 2025-08-18; academic year end: 2026-05-22; summer term listed: yescalendar dates and status | Academic year 2025-2026 and listed summer term | San José State University | Supports modeled relationship | [20] |
| City procurement portal publishes opportunities for services, supplies, equipment, technology, construction, and consulting | public opportunity categories: services, supplies, equipment, technology, construction, consultingopportunity categories | Current procurement links accessed August 2026 | City of San José | Supports modeled relationship | [24] |
| Projects in mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas require flood-zone review and may require elevation or floodproofing measures | mapped zone gate: yes; possible requirements: elevation, floodproofing, documentationreview conditions | Current FEMA and city review framework accessed August 2026 | San José properties in FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas | Conditional relationship | [15] [23] |
| Mapped geologic, landslide, and liquefaction zones can trigger geologic clearance for development projects | mapped zone gate: yes; review types: geologic hazard clearance, geologic clearancereview conditions | Current review framework accessed August 2026 | San José development sites in covered hazard zones | Conditional relationship | [16] [23] |
| Private-property signage is regulated under Title 23 and is subject to permit, zoning, and design requirements | permit framework: yes; site and sign type specific: yesregulatory conditions | Current sign-code framework accessed August 2026 | San Jose, California | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Exterior changes to designated landmarks and historic-district properties can require Historic Preservation Permit review | designation gate: yes; exterior change review: yesregulatory conditions | Current ordinance framework and 2025 update process accessed August 2026 | San José landmarks and historic-district properties | Conditional relationship | [22] [23] |
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 71.60 after target-market demand +2.1 pts and labor and staffing friction -0.5 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit model definitionInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2United States Structural Inefficiency and CRE Arbitrage AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Jurisdictional Friction and Structural Capital Constraints: A Forensic Audit of Municipal Operating EnvironmentsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Franchise neighborhood operating notesInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5QuickFacts: San Jose city, California
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Household and population-density measures, Median household income and housing-cost indicators, and Owner-occupied housing-unit rate
- 6Envision San José 2040 General Plan
Used for: City transformation during the 1960s and 1970s from an agricultural landscape to a major urban and technology center
- 72023-2031 Housing Element Update
Used for: Regional Housing Needs Allocation in the 2023-2031 Housing Element
- 8Occupational Employment and Wages in San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wages for major frontline occupational groups and Mean hourly wages and employment shares for construction and maintenance occupations
- 9Minimum Wage Ordinance
Used for: San José minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 10Energy and Water Building Performance Ordinance
Used for: Building Performance Ordinance benchmarking threshold and 2026 reporting cycle
- 11Beyond Benchmarking Requirements
Used for: Beyond Benchmarking compliance pathways for assigned covered buildings
- 12Parking Regulations
Used for: Public-street vehicle parking limit without movement
- 13Residential Permit Parking
Used for: Residential permit-parking zones require zone-specific permits or guest authorization for many service-provider vehicles
- 14Residential Permit Parking Frequently Asked Questions
Used for: Residential permit-parking zones require zone-specific permits or guest authorization for many service-provider vehicles
- 15Flood Hazard Zone
Used for: Projects in mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas require flood-zone review and may require elevation or floodproofing measures
- 16Geological Hazard Review
Used for: Mapped geologic, landslide, and liquefaction zones can trigger geologic clearance for development projects
- 17Silicon Valley Office Market Report — Q2 2026
Used for: San Jose office-submarket conditions in Q2 2026
- 18Silicon Valley Industrial Market Report — Q2 2026
Used for: San Jose industrial-submarket conditions in Q2 2026
- 19A Record-Breaking Year for Enrollment: Nearly 40,000 Spartans Call SJSU Home
Used for: San José State University fall 2025 enrollment
- 20Academic Year 2025-2026 Calendar
Used for: SJSU academic calendar includes fall, spring, and summer terms
- 21Sign Code — Title 23
Used for: Private-property signage is regulated under Title 23 and is subject to permit, zoning, and design requirements
- 22Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
Used for: Exterior changes to designated landmarks and historic-district properties can require Historic Preservation Permit review
- 23Design Considerations Before Starting a Development Project
Used for: Projects in mapped Special Flood Hazard Areas require flood-zone review and may require elevation or floodproofing measures, Mapped geologic, landslide, and liquefaction zones can trigger geologic clearance for development projects, and Exterior changes to designated landmarks and historic-district properties can require Historic Preservation Permit review
- 24City of San José Bid Opportunities
Used for: City procurement portal publishes opportunities for services, supplies, equipment, technology, construction, and consulting
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.