Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Santa Ana and see how 43.8% multifamily housing share and 44.6% homeownership rate shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Santa Ana's local operating conditions. Santa Ana's 43.8% share of housing in buildings with two or more units created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to multifamily housing concentration. [3] Santa Ana's 44.6% owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [2] [1]
City Wide Facility Solutions scored 71.00. It leads JAN-PRO International by 0.24 points. 43.8% of housing in Santa Ana is in buildings with two or more units. For City Wide Facility Solutions, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 0.64 points through multifamily housing concentration. [3] Across the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim metro area, the mean wage for building and grounds occupations was $22.02 per hour in May 2025. For City Wide Facility Solutions, this was the largest negative contribution, reducing the score by 0.10 points through high local occupational wage cost environment. [4] The largest direct difference versus JAN-PRO International came from Santa Ana's 43.8% share of housing in buildings with two or more units, which contributed +0.64 points to City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.44 points to JAN-PRO International. [3]
What this means: this is a deterministic comparison of documented local conditions against resolved operating-model exposures. It is not an earnings forecast, investment recommendation, or franchise-quality rating.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City Wide Facility SolutionsIntegrated Facility Management | 71.00Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.64 pts43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | -0.10 pts$22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.76Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.44 pts43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | -0.10 ptsSAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 70.46Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.33 pts43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | -0.18 pts$22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 70.38Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.30 ptsSAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access | -0.10 ptsSAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 70.30Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.49 pts43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | -0.27 pts$22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Workout AnytimeFull-Service FitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 Item 7 source | 69.81Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.06 pts1.6% population change since 2020 | -0.15 pts$22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Tiger AdjustersPublic Adjusting & Claims AdvocacyInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 Item 7 source | 69.47Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.16 pts43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | -0.65 pts44.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 69.30Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.25 pts43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | -0.72 pts44.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | HomeSmilesRecurring Property MaintenanceInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 Item 7 source | 69.27Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.33 pts1.6% population change since 2020 | -0.80 pts44.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source | 69.25Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.26 pts1.6% population change since 2020 | -0.72 pts44.6% owner-occupied housing share | Moderate evidence confidence |
Cross-concept impact analysis
A city condition changes a franchise score only when it intersects with a relevant operating-model exposure. The center shows average effect when applied; the surrounding ring shows how broadly that relationship reached across the concepts assessed.
Most relevant modeled attributes: homeownership dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: skilled trade labor, technical labor, and administrative labor.
Most relevant modeled attributes: property manager sales, multi family housing dependency, and recurring commercial demand.
Most relevant modeled attributes: property manager sales, institutional sales, and professional referral dependency.
Most relevant modeled attributes: scheduled residential service, recurring residential demand, and resident population density dependency.
Modeled evidence traces
Each trace follows one documented local condition through resolved operating-model exposure, exact score contribution, and the resulting modeled difference. Open either image for the full-size analytical view.
Why the ranking came out this way
The comparison, score path, and counterfactual below all use the same contribution ledger as the published ranking.
The modeled gap is small enough that the two concepts should be treated as a leading cluster rather than a decisive first and second place.
| Modeled relationship | City Wide Facility Solutions | JAN-PRO International | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units [3] | +0.64 pts | +0.44 pts | +0.20 pts |
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access [12] [11] [9] | +0.24 pts | +0.38 pts | -0.14 pts |
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access [12] [11] [9] | 0.00 pts | -0.10 pts | +0.10 pts |
Santa Ana's 43.8% share of housing in buildings with two or more units created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +0.64 points for City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.44 points for JAN-PRO International. [3]
City Wide Facility Solutions, JAN-PRO International, and FASTSIGNS gained more than the rest of the field from 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units and professional and institutional relationship density. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations through labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality. [3] [12] [11] [9] [4]
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.86 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.24 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.999 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.00 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Inside the analysis workflow
Methodology-reference views of the research and QA workflow. Open any image for the full-size version.
Evaluation set
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
Concepts were included when the available operating-model evidence supported a deterministic local-sensitivity profile. Brand participation in our referral network does not affect the score.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
69.66 average across 2 concepts
0.22 points average among 8 affected concepts
0.26 points average reduction among 13 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 11 concepts and added 0.28 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units. [3]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.66 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 44.6% owner-occupied housing share. [1] [2]
Compare all assessed concepts
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see every material score-changing relationship, with factor net shown only as secondary context; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 1 constraint.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more unitsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #1 without this driver. | +0.64 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,369,865 passengers john Wayne Airport annual passengers | +0.12 pts | HighEvidence |
| 55.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.24 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.86 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.10 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.24 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.999 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.00 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.034 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more unitsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #2 without this driver. | +0.44 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,369,865 passengers john Wayne Airport annual passengers | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| 55.4% renter-occupied housing share | +0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.38 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.55 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.07 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.10 |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.38 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.755 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.76 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.048 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.14 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.49 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.18 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.14 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.455 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.46 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 1 constraint. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.033 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement accessLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #4 to #5 without this driver. | +0.30 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | +0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.18 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | -0.10 |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.30 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.382 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.38 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.043 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more unitsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #5 to #6 without this driver. | +0.49 pts | HighEvidence |
| 44.6% owner-occupied housing share | -0.24 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,369,865 passengers john Wayne Airport annual passengers | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.19 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected district
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.38 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.27 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.19 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.297 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.30 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupationsLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #6 without this driver. | -0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected impact fee district
Applicability depends on the selected historic district
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.15 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.806 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.81 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.036 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.15 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.38 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.15 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.467 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.47 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 3 constraints. 3 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.052 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 44.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #7 without this driver. | -0.72 pts | HighEvidence |
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | +0.25 pts | HighEvidence |
| 1.6% population change since 2020 | +0.22 pts | HighEvidence |
| 44.0% detached single-family housing share | -0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Applicability depends on the selected district
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.30 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.40 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.304 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.30 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 3 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 44.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #9 without this driver. | -0.80 pts | HighEvidence |
| 1.6% population change since 2020 | +0.33 pts | HighEvidence |
| 44.0% detached single-family housing share | -0.29 pts | HighEvidence |
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | +0.13 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,369,865 passengers john Wayne Airport annual passengers | +0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.32 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.17 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.58 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.32 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.17 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.269 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.27 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
7 material local relationships changed this score: 4 advantages and 3 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.019 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 44.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #10 without this driver. | -0.72 pts | HighEvidence |
| 1.6% population change since 2020 | +0.26 pts | HighEvidence |
| 44.0% detached single-family housing share | -0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,369,865 passengers john Wayne Airport annual passengers | +0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.40 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.12 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected district
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.48 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.40 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.12 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.249 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.25 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 3 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 44.6% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #8 without this driver. | -0.73 pts | HighEvidence |
| 1.6% population change since 2020 | +0.26 pts | HighEvidence |
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | +0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| 44.0% detached single-family housing share | -0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected district
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.37 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.41 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.218 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.22 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
3 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.029 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.29 pts | HighEvidence |
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.56 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.29 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.142 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.14 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900 · Item 7 evidence below
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
6 material local relationships changed this score: 3 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.042 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 13.5% under-65 uninsured shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #13 to #7 without this driver. | -0.70 pts | HighEvidence |
| 44.6% owner-occupied housing share | -0.49 pts | HighEvidence |
| 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units | +0.19 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,369,865 passengers john Wayne Airport annual passengers | +0.08 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| SAUSD provides PlanetBids vendor registration and solicitation access. sAUSD vendor procurement access | +0.17 pts | ModerateEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected district
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Franchise evidence
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.87 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.27 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.17 |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.027 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.03 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 1 advantage and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.029 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.34 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected corridor
Relationship effects are shown individually. Factor net values are secondary subtotals. Any scored relationship below the public materiality threshold is reconciled in the accounting residual.
Audit layer
Every factor is classified. Factor values here are net totals; the score-changing relationship table above preserves material positive and negative drivers even when they offset inside the same factor.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.00 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.78 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not included in the score |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.34 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.875 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.87 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Factor impact
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
We tested how much of the city’s theoretical customer and business demand remained usable after operating friction.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #13 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 7 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #7 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We weighed the size of the prospect pool against local digital competition and the length of the relevant sales cycle.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 2 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #4 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #9 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Rank stability
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.
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Net factor impact
This graph plots net factor totals for the top 14 concepts. A near-zero net can contain meaningful positive and negative scored relationships that offset each other; those underlying drivers remain visible in each franchise's expanded score explanation.
| Concept | Target-market demand | Labor and staffing friction | Sales and customer acquisition | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide Facility Solutions | +0.90 pts | -0.10 pts | — | +0.20 pts |
| #2 JAN-PRO International | +0.50 pts | -0.10 pts | -0.10 pts | +0.40 pts |
| #3 FASTSIGNS | +0.50 pts | -0.20 pts | — | +0.10 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.20 pts | — | -0.10 pts | +0.30 pts |
| #5 PuroClean | +0.40 pts | -0.30 pts | — | +0.20 pts |
| #6 Workout Anytime | — | -0.20 pts | — | — |
| #7 Tiger Adjusters | -0.40 pts | -0.10 pts | — | — |
| #8 ZOOM DRAIN | -0.30 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #9 HomeSmiles | -0.60 pts | -0.30 pts | — | +0.20 pts |
| #10 Mr. Rooter | -0.50 pts | -0.40 pts | — | +0.10 pts |
| #11 Aire Serv | -0.40 pts | -0.40 pts | — | — |
| #12 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | -0.60 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
| #13 Rainbow International Restoration | -0.90 pts | -0.30 pts | — | +0.20 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | -0.80 pts | -0.30 pts | — | — |
Interpretation
City Wide Facility Solutions, JAN-PRO International, and FASTSIGNS gained more than the rest of the field from 43.8% of housing in buildings with two or more units and professional and institutional relationship density. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations through labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model while constraining another, so this ranking describes local operating alignment rather than universal franchise quality.
Category comparisons
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
2 Property Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.03 to 70.30. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.30. Referral ecosystem added 0.18 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.27 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 1.27-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
2 Plumbing & Drain Services concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.25 to 69.30. ZOOM DRAIN ranked highest at 69.30. Referral ecosystem added 0.06 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.40 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.06-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
Metric registry
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Population estimate | 315,586 | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] |
| Population change since 2020 | 1.6% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 11,347.4 persons per square mile | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 81,069 households | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 44.6% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 55.4% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $713,000 | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median gross rent | $2,082 per month | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Recent-mover share | 8.1% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 22.9% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Supports modeled relationship | [1] [2] |
| Age-65-and-older population share | 11.4% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 5.9% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 13.5% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Civilian labor-force participation | 66.5% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Mean commute time | 24.5 minutes | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $93,999 | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 10.8% | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $15,542 per capita | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Accommodation and food-services sales | $852,885,000 | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] |
| Health care and social-assistance receipts | $2,671,844,000 | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] |
| Transportation and warehousing receipts | $400,715,000 | V2025 population estimates; 2020-2024 ACS; 2022 economic data | Santa Ana | Context only | [1] |
| Housing-unit count | 82,058 housing units | 2023 Department of Finance housing estimates | Santa Ana | Context only | [3] |
| Detached single-family housing share | 44.0% | 2023 Department of Finance housing estimates | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Housing in buildings with two or more units | 43.8% | 2023 Department of Finance housing estimates | Santa Ana | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $20.69 per hour | May 2025 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $22.02 per hour | May 2025 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $27.95 per hour | May 2025 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $37.07 per hour | May 2025 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage | $33.96 per hour | May 2025 | Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [4] |
How to use the ranking
Methodology
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply fully supported relationships at full weight and otherwise scoreable research- or taxonomy-gated relationships at a reduced provisional weight.
Keep territory-, site-, customer-, project-, or configuration-dependent relationships outside the baseline score until the relevant candidate selections are known.
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
Every concept starts from the same 70.00 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In Santa Ana, City Wide Facility Solutions reached 70.999. Target-market demand combined several local relationships for a net +0.86 points. [3] [8] Referral ecosystem totaled +0.24 points, led by professional and institutional relationship density at +0.24 points. [12] [11] [9] Labor and staffing friction totaled -0.10 points, led by $22.02 per hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations at -0.10 points. [4]
The current model caps total local movement at ±18.00 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Score calibration
Each score-changing relationship starts with its model-defined maximum effect. The documented city-condition strength and the franchise's weighted operating exposure scale that maximum. Evidence confidence, provenance, geographic applicability, and the profile-confidence multiplier then modify the pre-cap effect. Fully supported relationships use full weight; broadly applicable relationships held back only by research or taxonomy-review gates use an additional 0.80 eligibility multiplier. Candidate-dependent site, territory, customer, project, or operating selections remain outside the baseline score until resolved. Correlation and score caps can reduce the resulting magnitude before the final contribution is added to the common baseline.
The model does not use one universal Minor/Moderate/Strong point table. Relationship-specific max_effect values are the actual point ceilings, so publishing generic point bands would misstate the scoring system.
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
Model updates are versioned and dated, documenting material changes to scoring, evidence handling, methodology, governance, and presentation across published reports.
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
Used for: Population estimate, Population change since 2020, Population density, Household count, and Owner-occupied housing share
Used for: Population change since 2020, Owner-occupied housing share, Renter-occupied housing share, Median owner-occupied home value, and Median gross rent
Used for: Housing-unit count, Detached single-family housing share, and Housing in buildings with two or more units
Used for: Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage, Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations, Office and administrative support mean hourly wage, Construction and extraction mean hourly wage, and Installation, maintenance, and repair mean hourly wage
Before contacting a franchisor
Apply the analysis to your situation
The city score does not include your experience, capital structure, time commitment, financing, or exact territory.
Twenty Twenty-Five
