70.2 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Scottsdale, Arizona
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Scottsdale, Arizona. Local business demand was a leading positive mechanism. Territory and submarket uncertainty 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
28Local sources used
30Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
1.5 points average among 13 affected concepts
0.6 points average reduction among 14 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 8 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Scottsdale, Arizona
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Local business demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 10 exposed concepts, adding 1.2 points on average. Territory and submarket uncertainty was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 0.6 points on average. 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 | 74.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 72.8Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +3.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 72.6Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.1 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 72.4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment | +2.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenanceInvestment: $113,308–$271,708 | 71.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 71.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +2.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -1.2 ptsReal estate and site feasibility | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbingInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 | 70.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTerritory quality | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Scottsdale, Arizona
Large Scottsdale employment and company base supports local B2B demand without establishing uniform walk-in density
This relationship affected 10 concepts and added 1.2 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: LEHD worker flow shows Scottsdale as a net importer of workers: workers enter: 168,663; workers exit: 77,184; workers live and work in city: 31,332; workplaces in city: 199,995. [5] [12] [10]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was territory quality. [5] [12] [9] [10] [13] [11]
Scottsdale sign requirements can materially constrain standardized signage, but applicability depends on zoning and property-specific sign programs
Permanent-sign burden depends on the exact parcel zoning, street frontage, approved master sign program, and proposed sign package; S-R limits cannot be applied to an unspecified Scottsdale site. [21] [19]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large Scottsdale employment and company base supports local B2B demand without establishing uniform walk-in density1 modeled effect
Local business demandTarget-market demand
Active housing construction and completions add incremental household-service demand1 modeled effect
Household service demandTarget-market demand
Large 1980s-1990s housing cohort and documented repair needs support system-replacement demand1 modeled effect
Housing-system replacement demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Scottsdale retail asking rates materially exceed the Metro Phoenix aggregate, increasing fixed-location occupancy pressure1 modeled effect
Fixed-location occupancy cost pressureReal estate and site feasibility
Old Town, Airpark, and McDowell Corridor commercial conditions differ enough to make citywide averages unreliable for site selection1 modeled effect
Territory and submarket uncertaintyTerritory quality
Active 2026 Scottsdale corridor projects can disrupt route timing where a service territory intersects the work zones1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment74.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +3.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.6 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.8 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +4.36 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 | +3.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 74.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 74.4 |
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
- Strong
- 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 +3.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#1
#2Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.8
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +3.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.0 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.77 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +3.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.2 |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +3.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#10
#3Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.6
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +2.1 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.1 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.2 pts |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +2.59 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -0.1 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.7 |
| Territory quality | -0.2 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.59 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#4
#4Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +2.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.4 pts | |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 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 | +2.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 72.44 |
| Published local-market alignment | 72.4 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#7
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.30 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.5 |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.30 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#6
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.2
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.17 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.17 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +2.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -1.2 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +2.7 pts | |
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -1.2 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.13 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 | +2.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -1.2 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.4 |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +2.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#13
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.8
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.9 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.81 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 | +0.9 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.7 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.81 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.73 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 | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.5 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.73 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#11
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.40 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.40 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
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
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#13
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.28 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 | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.4 pts Territory quality
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Territory quality |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -0.4 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Referral ecosystemReduction -0.6 pts Territory quality
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Territory quality |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.13 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 | +0.2 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | -0.6 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.13 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Territory quality -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment66.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -2.8 pts Real estate and site feasibility
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Real estate and site feasibility |
| -2.8 pts |
| Territory quality |
| -1.2 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -3.63 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | -2.8 |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | -1.2 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 66.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 66.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Strong
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Real estate and site feasibility -2.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #14–#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 | +3.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.8 |
| Territory quality | -0.1 |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 74.36 |
| Published local-market alignment | 74.4 |
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 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 10 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #10, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected+1.5 pts
Average across all concepts+1.4 pts
Concepts changing rank10
What we observed
- Households, 2020 2024118,637 households
- Lehd Worker Flow Shows Scottsdale As A Net Importer Of Workersworkers enter: 168,663; workers exit: 77,184; workers live and work in city: 31,332; workplaces in city: 199,995
- Residential Units In The Scottsdale Development Pipeline During Fy 2024 2025in review: 1,179; under construction permits issued: 1,384; completed certificates of occupancy: 1,043 housing units
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+3.6 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+3.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+2.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+2.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+2.1 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, 8 concepts changed position. Mister Sparky Electric moved from #10 to #12, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Housing Units Built During 1980 1999built 1980 1989: 27,199; built 1990 1999: 34,845; combined: 62,044; total in age table: 139,263; combined share: 44.55 housing units and percent
- City Housing Assessment Estimates Housing Stock In Good Condition Versus Units Needing Maintenance Or Repairgood condition approx percent: 85; maintenance or repair approx percent: 15 percent of housing stock
- Approximate Scottsdale Drinking Water Hardness By Service Area Boundarysouth of indian school road gpg: 13-15; indian school to chaparral gpg: 13-17; north of chaparral gpg: 13-17; overall mg L ppm range: 215-290 grains per gallon and mg L
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspection
+0.3 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Real estate and site feasibility
We applied site and operating-base constraints only to concepts requiring comparable storefront, production, warehouse, or fleet space.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 3 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #7 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected-1.4 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank3
What we observed
- Q1 2026 Retail Asking Rates Vary Materially Across Scottsdale Employment Centersold town USD per sqft: 44.92; airpark USD per sqft: 33.37; mcdowell corridor USD per sqft: 24.15; old town to mcdowell premium percent: 86 USD per sqft and percent
- Q1 2026 Retail Vacancy And Asking Rate In Scottsdale Versus Metro Phoenixscottsdale vacancy percent: 3.8; scottsdale asking rate per sqft: 35.69; metro phoenix vacancy percent: 4.7; metro phoenix asking rate per sqft: 26.95; scottsdale rate premium percent: 32.43 percent and USD per sqft
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-2.8 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-1.2 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
-0.1 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Referral ecosystem
We tested whether the local professional and institutional referral ecosystem materially separated the assessed concepts.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 8 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #5 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted8 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- City Overview Reports More Than 31,000 Companies And More Than 220,000 Jobscompanies minimum: 31,000; jobs minimum: 220,000 count lower bounds
- Scottsdale Airpark Employment Center Has More Than 51,000 Workers51,000 workers minimum
- Scottsdale Economic Development Reports More Than 30,000 Healthcare And Social Assistance Professionals30,000 workers minimum
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+0.8 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Territory quality
We measured whether the territory structure could support the required customer density, service radius, and operating model.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 14 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #4 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted14 of 14
Average among affected-0.6 pts
Average across all concepts-0.6 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- Q1 2026 Retail Asking Rates Vary Materially Across Scottsdale Employment Centersold town USD per sqft: 44.92; airpark USD per sqft: 33.37; mcdowell corridor USD per sqft: 24.15; old town to mcdowell premium percent: 86 USD per sqft and percent
- Lehd Worker Flow Shows Scottsdale As A Net Importer Of Workersworkers enter: 168,663; workers exit: 77,184; workers live and work in city: 31,332; workplaces in city: 199,995
- Scottsdale Airpark Employment Center Has More Than 51,000 Workers51,000 workers minimum
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-1.2 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Labor and staffing frictionNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#1
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#10
#3 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #2–#4
#4 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#7
#5 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #3–#6
#6 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #4–#8
#7 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#8 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #7–#9
#9 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #7–#11
#10 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#13
#11 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #6–#12
#12 Tiger AdjustersModerately sensitive · tested #10–#13
#13 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #5–#13
#14 Workout AnytimeStable · tested #14–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Score-changing factors
Factors that changed the calculated scores
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [12] [5] [7] [11] [27] [28] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [6] [8] [1]Competitive environment: [4] [12] [11] [9] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [15] [16] [5] [14] [13] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [23] [24] [25] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [9] [10] [17] [26] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [12] [9] [11] [3]Referral ecosystem: [10] [11] [12] [5] [13]Territory quality: [9] [10] [5] [24] [25] [19] [21] [26] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [26] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Real estate and site feasibility | Referral ecosystem | Territory quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +3.6 pts | — | — | +0.8 pts | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +3.0 pts | — | — | +0.2 pts | -0.4 pts |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +2.1 pts | — | -0.1 pts | +0.7 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #4 HomeSmiles | +2.4 pts | — | — | +0.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #5 ZOOM DRAIN | +1.0 pts | +0.5 pts | — | +0.5 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #6 Aire Serv | +1.0 pts | +0.7 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #7 FASTSIGNS | +2.7 pts | — | -1.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.7 pts |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +0.9 pts | +0.5 pts | — | — | -0.7 pts |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | +1.0 pts | +0.3 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts |
| #10 Mister Sparky Electric | +0.5 pts | +0.5 pts | — | — | -0.6 pts |
| #11 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.2 pts | — | +0.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #12 Tiger Adjusters | +0.5 pts | — | — | — | -0.4 pts |
| #13 PuroClean | — | +0.2 pts | — | +0.6 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | +0.4 pts | — | -2.8 pts | — | -1.2 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to territory quality. 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 Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles, Aire Serv; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Scottsdale, Arizona
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.2Limited comparison: Restoration franchise opportunities assessed in Scottsdale, Arizona
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.1 to 70.3. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.3. Referral ecosystem added 0.6 points on average among the affected concepts. Territory quality reduced the exposed concepts by 0.6 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
- 70.1–70.3
- Category average
- 70.2
Rainbow International Restoration70.3
PuroClean70.1
Metric registry
The 30 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 | 243,006people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 0.7percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 118,637households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024 | 110,886USD per household | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [4] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 11,629,491,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS characteristics; 2022 economic census measures | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [4] |
| City overview reports more than 31,000 companies and more than 220,000 jobs | companies minimum: 31,000; jobs minimum: 220,000count lower bounds | 2023 demographic measures, 2020 worker flows, and 2024-25 municipal overview | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [12] |
| LEHD worker flow shows Scottsdale as a net importer of workers | workers enter: 168,663; workers exit: 77,184; workers live and work in city: 31,332; workplaces in city: 199,995workers | 2023 resident estimates, 2020 LEHD inflow/outflow, and 2024 employer information | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [5] [12] |
| Scottsdale Airpark employment center has more than 51,000 workers | 51,000workers minimum | Current page accessed August 2026; employment-center estimates described as current | Scottsdale Airpark | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Scottsdale economic development reports more than 30,000 healthcare and social assistance professionals | 30,000workers minimum | Current page accessed August 2026; tourism impact cites 2023 and current industry profiles | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [11] |
| HonorHealth is the largest listed Scottsdale employer in the city demographic summary | 7,459employees | 2023 resident estimates, 2020 LEHD inflow/outflow, and 2024 employer information | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [5] |
| HonorHealth Scottsdale Shea Medical Center licensed bed capacity | 427beds | Current facility profile accessed August 2026 | HonorHealth Scottsdale Shea Medical Center | Used in scoring | [13] |
| Estimated Scottsdale visitor volume in 2024 | domestic overnight: 4,900,000; international overnight: 1,700,000; domestic day trip: 5,100,000; hospitality and supplier jobs supported: 36,000people and jobs | Calendar year 2024 visitation and FY 2024-25 visitor-attributable tax estimates | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [27] |
| Housing units built during 1980-1999 | built 1980 1989: 27,199; built 1990 1999: 34,845; combined: 62,044; total in age table: 139,263; combined share: 44.55housing units and percent | ACS 2019-2023, city housing inventory, building-inspector condition information, and 2025-2029 planning horizon | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [6] |
| City housing assessment estimates housing stock in good condition versus units needing maintenance or repair | good condition approx percent: 85; maintenance or repair approx percent: 15percent of housing stock | ACS 2019-2023, city housing inventory, building-inspector condition information, and 2025-2029 planning horizon | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Residential units in the Scottsdale development pipeline during FY 2024-2025 | in review: 1,179; under construction permits issued: 1,384; completed certificates of occupancy: 1,043housing units | July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025 | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Approximate Scottsdale drinking-water hardness by service-area boundary | south of indian school road gpg: 13-15; indian school to chaparral gpg: 13-17; north of chaparral gpg: 13-17; overall mg L ppm range: 215-290grains per gallon and mg L | 2025 water portfolio and 2025 compliance monitoring; report published 2026 | Scottsdale Water service area | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Q1 2026 retail vacancy and asking rate in Scottsdale versus Metro Phoenix | scottsdale vacancy percent: 3.8; scottsdale asking rate per sqft: 35.69; metro phoenix vacancy percent: 4.7; metro phoenix asking rate per sqft: 26.95; scottsdale rate premium percent: 32.43percent and USD per sqft | January-March 2026; Q1 2025 comparison | Scottsdale, Arizona | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Q1 2026 industrial vacancy and asking rate in Scottsdale versus Metro Phoenix | scottsdale vacancy percent: 9.7; scottsdale asking rate per sqft: 21.4; metro phoenix vacancy percent: 11.9; metro phoenix asking rate per sqft: 12.5; scottsdale rate premium percent: 71.2percent and USD per sqft | January-March 2026; Q1 2025 comparison | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [9] |
| Q1 2026 retail asking rates vary materially across Scottsdale employment centers | old town USD per sqft: 44.92; airpark USD per sqft: 33.37; mcdowell corridor USD per sqft: 24.15; old town to mcdowell premium percent: 86USD per sqft and percent | January-March 2026; Q1 2025 comparison | Old Town, Airpark, and McDowell Corridor, Scottsdale | Used in scoring | [9] |
| FY 2026-27 commercial building permit charges scale with climate-controlled area | base fee USD: 237; area with AC USD per sqft: 0.94; covered non AC USD per sqft: 0.54; certificate of occupancy USD: 195; GIS fee USD: 379; tenant improvement AC multiplier: 0.3fee schedule | Effective July 1, 2026 under Resolution No. 13661 | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [17] |
| FY 2026-27 commercial plan-review charges include A/C-area and covered-area rates | AC area USD per sqft: 0.54; covered non AC USD per sqft: 0.34; tenant improvement multiplier: 0.3; green compliance USD per sqft: 0.1; green compliance max USD: 600fee schedule | Effective July 1, 2026 under Resolution No. 13661 | Scottsdale, Arizona | Context only | [18] |
| S-R zoning imposes specific total sign-area caps for unspecified uses | individual business wall sign max sqft: 12; development under 40000 gross sqft total sign max sqft: 72; development 40000 or more gross sqft total sign max sqft: 144; within 250ft of street total business sign limit sqft: 18square feet | Current zoning interpretation accessed August 2026; underlying Section 8.503 ordinances date to 1989-1990 | Service Residential (S-R), Scottsdale | Conditional relationship | [19] |
| City states that more than 300 master sign programs are on file | 300programs minimum | Current program inventory and procedures accessed August 2026 | Scottsdale, Arizona | Conditional relationship | [21] |
| Commercial temporary banners require permits, are generally limited to 35 consecutive days, and several temporary sign forms are prohibited | building banner max duration days: 35; SR banner max sqft: 12; vertical feather blade banners prohibited: yes; street banners prohibited: yes; balloons inflatables without special event permit prohibited: yesrule set | Current rules accessed August 2026; page last updated May 21, 2026 | Scottsdale, Arizona | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Thomas Road utility work is actively restricting a Scottsdale corridor in 2026 | corridor: Thomas Road, 56th Street to 73rd Street; sewer work: early August through end of October 2026; waterline work: begins late 2026; traffic effects: lane reductions, limited left-hand turns; access to businesses maintained: yesproject status | Sewer work August-October 2026; waterline work begins late 2026; larger corridor reconstruction follows | Thomas Road, 56th Street to 73rd Street, Scottsdale | Conditional relationship | [24] |
| Scottsdale Road Jomax-to-Dixileta improvements remain under construction in 2026 | corridor: Scottsdale Road, Jomax Road to Dixileta Drive; construction status: active; dynamite intersection work: remainder of 2026; traffic effects: lane reductions, turn restrictions, reduced work-zone speed limitsproject status | Construction active in 2026; redesigned Dynamite Boulevard intersection work planned through the remainder of 2026 | Scottsdale Road, Jomax Road to Dixileta Drive, Scottsdale | Conditional relationship | [25] |
| Main Loop 101 widening is complete, with only final work remaining into early September 2026 | main widening status: completed early 2026; final surface status: completed June 2026; remaining work: final lane striping and electrical work; anticipated completion: early September 2026; full loop101 closures anticipated: noproject status | Main widening completed early 2026; final lane striping and electrical work anticipated through early September 2026 | Loop 101, Princess Drive/Pima Road to Shea Boulevard, Scottsdale | Conditional relationship | [23] |
| Scottsdale contains FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas with site-specific insurance implications | mapped zone types: A, A1-A30, AE, AH, AO; AH AO typical depth feet: 1-3; scottsdale CRS discount general policy percent: 20; scottsdale CRS discount reduced risk policy percent: 5hazard and policy | Current FEMA flood-zone framework and city guidance accessed August 2026 | FEMA flood zones within Scottsdale | Context only | [26] |
| Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler occupational wage baseline in May 2025 | all occupations mean hourly USD: 33.48; US all occupations mean hourly USD: 33.54; office admin mean hourly USD: 24.97; building grounds mean hourly USD: 19.59; food prep serving mean hourly USD: 20.58; installation maintenance repair mean hourly USD: 29.88USD per hour | May 2025 Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics | Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler, Arizona MSA | Context only | [15] |
| Arizona minimum wage effective January 1, 2026 | minimum wage USD per hour: 15.15; maximum tip credit USD per hour: 3USD per hour | Effective January 1, 2026 | Arizona | Context only | [16] |
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 74.36 after target-market demand +3.6 pts, referral ecosystem +0.8 pts, and territory quality -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Reports are checked for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability before publication.
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
Local evidence supporting this report
The city page keeps the local sources used for its visible findings and metrics. Franchise-source provenance stays with the underlying franchise research rather than being duplicated across every city page.
- 1Supplied multi-city structural and operating-fit research docketInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Municipal Forensic Audit: Structural Constraints and Deal-Killer AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Franchise data - remake - 181Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4QuickFacts: Scottsdale city, Arizona
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024, and Total retail sales in 2022
- 5Scottsdale by the Numbers: A Demographic Summary
Used for: LEHD worker flow shows Scottsdale as a net importer of workers and HonorHealth is the largest listed Scottsdale employer in the city demographic summary
- 62025 City of Scottsdale Housing Needs Assessment
Used for: Housing units built during 1980-1999 and City housing assessment estimates housing stock in good condition versus units needing maintenance or repair
- 7FY 2024-2025 Annual Housing Report
Used for: Residential units in the Scottsdale development pipeline during FY 2024-2025
- 82026 Water Quality Report
Used for: Approximate Scottsdale drinking-water hardness by service-area boundary
- 9Commercial Occupancy Trends
Used for: Q1 2026 retail vacancy and asking rate in Scottsdale versus Metro Phoenix, Q1 2026 industrial vacancy and asking rate in Scottsdale versus Metro Phoenix, and Q1 2026 retail asking rates vary materially across Scottsdale employment centers
- 10Employment Centers
Used for: Scottsdale Airpark employment center has more than 51,000 workers
- 11Primary Industries
Used for: Scottsdale economic development reports more than 30,000 healthcare and social assistance professionals
- 12Scottsdale Overview 2024-25
Used for: City overview reports more than 31,000 companies and more than 220,000 jobs and LEHD worker flow shows Scottsdale as a net importer of workers
- 13HonorHealth Scottsdale Shea Medical Center
Used for: HonorHealth Scottsdale Shea Medical Center licensed bed capacity
- 14
- 15Occupational Employment and Wages in Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler — May 2025
Used for: Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler occupational wage baseline in May 2025
- 16New 2026 Minimum Wage - Effective January 1, 2026
Used for: Arizona minimum wage effective January 1, 2026
- 17Permit Fee Schedule - Commercial, FY 2026-27
Used for: FY 2026-27 commercial building permit charges scale with climate-controlled area
- 18Plan Review Fee Schedule - Commercial, FY 2026-27
Used for: FY 2026-27 commercial plan-review charges include A/C-area and covered-area rates
- 19Zoning Interpretation Record: Determining total sign area for unspecified uses in the S-R zone
Used for: S-R zoning imposes specific total sign-area caps for unspecified uses
- 21Master Sign Programs
Used for: City states that more than 300 master sign programs are on file
- 22
- 23Loop 101 (Pima Freeway), Princess Drive/Pima Road to Shea Boulevard Improvements
Used for: Main Loop 101 widening is complete, with only final work remaining into early September 2026
- 24Thomas Road: 56th Street to 73rd Street
Used for: Thomas Road utility work is actively restricting a Scottsdale corridor in 2026
- 25Scottsdale Road Improvements: Jomax Road to Dixileta Drive
Used for: Scottsdale Road Jomax-to-Dixileta improvements remain under construction in 2026
- 26FEMA Flood Zones / Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Used for: Scottsdale contains FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas with site-specific insurance implications
- 27Scottsdale Tourism Study - Visitor Statistics
Used for: Estimated Scottsdale visitor volume in 2024
- 28
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.