Local operating-model alignment analysis
Compare 14 franchise concepts in Spokane and see how $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts shaped local-alignment scores.
Bottom line
We compared 14 franchise concepts against Spokane's local operating conditions. Spokane's $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts created one of the strongest positive local signals for concepts exposed to healthcare institutional service demand. [1] [17] Spokane's 58.8% owner-occupied housing share created one of the more important local constraints for concepts exposed to low homeownership concentration. [1] [2]
City Wide Facility Solutions scored 71.51. It leads FASTSIGNS by 0.11 points. The documented health care and social assistance receipts in Spokane is $4.748 billion. For City Wide Facility Solutions, this was the largest positive contribution, adding 1.31 points through healthcare institutional service demand. [1] [17] The model applied its general operating-friction guardrail at 0.10 points. The largest direct difference versus FASTSIGNS came from Spokane's $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts, which contributed +1.31 points to City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.26 points to FASTSIGNS. [1] [17]
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 | 71.51Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.31 pts$4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 2 | FASTSIGNSSigns & GraphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 Item 7 source | 71.40Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.65 pts1,340 units residential units permitted | -0.11 pts$21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | High evidence confidence |
| 3 | JAN-PRO InternationalFranchise Consulting TrainingInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 Item 7 source | 70.41Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.46 pts11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian… | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 4 | ActionCOACHBusiness CoachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 Item 7 source | 70.14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.18 pts11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian… | -0.10 ptsgeneral operating-friction guardrail | High evidence confidence |
| 5 | HomeSmilesRecurring Property MaintenanceInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 Item 7 source | 70.11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.56 pts$4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | -0.59 pts58.8% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 6 | PuroCleanProperty RestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 Item 7 source | 70.10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.46 pts11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian… | -0.35 pts58.8% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 7 | Rainbow International RestorationProperty RestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 Item 7 source | 70.06Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.43 pts11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian… | -0.35 pts58.8% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 8 | Mr. RooterPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $152,900–$298,675 Item 7 source | 69.83Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.32 pts11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian… | -0.53 pts58.8% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 9 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome InspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 Item 7 source | 69.82Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.41 pts16.8% recent-mover share | -0.53 pts58.8% owner-occupied housing share | High evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINPlumbing & Drain ServicesInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 Item 7 source | 69.73Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.30 pts$4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | -0.53 pts58.8% owner-occupied housing share | High 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: institutional sales.
Most relevant modeled attributes: facility management service, institutional sales, and commercial cleaning service.
Most relevant modeled attributes: skilled trade labor, technical labor, and administrative labor.
Most relevant modeled attributes: scheduled residential service, recurring residential demand, and housing turnover 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 | FASTSIGNS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts [1] [17] | +1.31 pts | +0.26 pts | +1.05 pts |
| 1,340 units residential units permitted [9] | 0.00 pts | +0.65 pts | -0.65 pts |
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employees [18] | +0.32 pts | +0.60 pts | -0.28 pts |
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | 0.00 pts | -0.10 pts |
Spokane's $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts created the largest modeled gap in this head-to-head: +1.31 points for City Wide Facility Solutions versus +0.26 points for FASTSIGNS. [1] [17]
City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and JAN-PRO International gained more than the rest of the field from $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts and Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area through target-market demand. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to $21.39/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. [1] [17] [18] [3]
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 | +1.67 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.507 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.51 |
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
70.08 average across 2 concepts
0.28 points average among 12 affected concepts
0.17 points average reduction among 12 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 6 positions
Conditions that changed the analysis
This relationship affected 9 concepts and added 0.33 points on average among those exposed. [18]
This relationship affected 9 concepts and reduced 0.50 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: 58.8% 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.
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 +0.041 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -0.10 pts | ModerateEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.06 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 | +1.67 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.06 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.507 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.51 |
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. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 1,340 units residential units permittedLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #2 without this driver. | +0.65 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employees | +0.60 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.26 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.11 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 | +1.55 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.11 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.396 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.40 |
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.
4 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to -0.017 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employeesLargest driverRelationship test: Rank stays #3 without this driver. | +0.46 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.14 pts | HighEvidence |
| $363,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.07 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -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 | +0.56 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.410 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.41 |
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: Highly 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 +0.011 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| general operating-friction guardrail | -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 | +0.24 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.10 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.141 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.14 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Initial investment: $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.
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 +0.020 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #5 to #3 without this driver. | -0.59 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.56 pts | HighEvidence |
| 0.8% population change since 2020 | +0.25 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employees | +0.16 pts | HighEvidence |
| $363,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.20 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 | +0.31 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.20 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.111 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.11 |
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: 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: 2 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.030 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employeesLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #6 to #7 without this driver. | +0.46 pts | HighEvidence |
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing share | -0.35 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.14 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.17 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected procurement jurisdiction
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 | +0.28 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.17 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.104 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.10 |
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: 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 +0.027 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employeesLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #7 to #8 without this driver. | +0.43 pts | HighEvidence |
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing share | -0.35 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.13 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.17 pts | HighEvidence |
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 | +0.23 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.17 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.056 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.06 |
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: 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: 3 advantages and 2 constraints. 2 additional scored relationships fell below the public row threshold.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #8 to #7 without this driver. | -0.53 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employees | +0.32 pts | HighEvidence |
| 0.8% population change since 2020 | +0.19 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.25 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.
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 | +0.08 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.25 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.828 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.83 |
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.
5 material local relationships changed this score: 2 advantages and 3 constraints.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #9 to #8 without this driver. | -0.53 pts | HighEvidence |
| 16.8% recent-mover share | +0.41 pts | HighEvidence |
| 0.8% population change since 2020 | +0.18 pts | HighEvidence |
| $363,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.18 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 | Effect below the publication threshold |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.823 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.82 |
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: 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: 3 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.011 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #10 to #9 without this driver. | -0.53 pts | HighEvidence |
| $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts | +0.30 pts | HighEvidence |
| 0.8% population change since 2020 | +0.16 pts | HighEvidence |
| 11,868 people team Fairchild members, dependents, and civilian employees | +0.09 pts | HighEvidence |
| $363,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.06 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.25 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.
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 | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.25 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.734 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.73 |
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: Highly sensitive
Score-changing local relationships are grouped by factor. Each factor subtotal shows the net contribution after model controls.
2 material local relationships changed this score: 0 advantages and 2 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.047 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| 58.8% owner-occupied housing shareLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #11 to #13 without this driver. | -0.47 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.09 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 | -0.42 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.09 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.485 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.48 |
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: 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.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.26 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 | -0.39 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.26 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.354 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.35 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to two decimal places; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Rank sensitivity: Highly 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.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.21 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 | -0.49 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.21 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.296 |
| 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: $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: 0 advantages and 3 constraints. 1 additional scored relationship fell below the public row threshold and reconcile to +0.044 pts.
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Applies to new development approvals transportation impact-fee applicabilityLargest driverRelationship test: Rank #14 to #11 without this driver. | -0.46 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $363,500 median owner-occupied home value | -0.27 pts | HighEvidence |
| Scored local driver | Effect | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations | -0.10 pts | HighEvidence |
Applicability depends on the selected 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 | -0.23 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Potential candidate-specific adjustment |
| Territory quality | Measured; no meaningful local adjustment |
| Regulatory and operating friction | -0.46 |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.215 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.21 |
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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Tiger Adjusters moved from #11 to #1, 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 12 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 6 concepts changed position. HomeSmiles moved from #5 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
We separated regulations that create operating burdens from those that may create demand for qualified compliance and retrofit services.
We applied a measurable adjustment to 4 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 4 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #14 to #11, 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 | Regulatory and operating friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide Facility Solutions | +1.70 pts | -0.10 pts | -0.10 pts |
| #2 FASTSIGNS | +1.50 pts | -0.10 pts | — |
| #3 JAN-PRO International | +0.60 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #4 ActionCOACH | +0.20 pts | — | -0.10 pts |
| #5 HomeSmiles | +0.30 pts | -0.20 pts | — |
| #6 PuroClean | +0.30 pts | -0.20 pts | — |
| #7 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.20 pts | -0.20 pts | — |
| #8 Mr. Rooter | +0.10 pts | -0.20 pts | — |
| #9 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | -0.20 pts | — |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | — | -0.20 pts | — |
| #11 Tiger Adjusters | -0.40 pts | -0.10 pts | — |
| #12 Aire Serv | -0.40 pts | -0.30 pts | — |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | -0.50 pts | -0.20 pts | — |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.20 pts | -0.10 pts | -0.50 pts |
Interpretation
City Wide Facility Solutions, FASTSIGNS, and JAN-PRO International gained more than the rest of the field from $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts and Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area through target-market demand. They were also less exposed than the rest of the field to $21.39/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 70.06 to 70.10. PuroClean ranked highest at 70.10. Target-market demand added 0.25 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.17 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.05-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 69.73 to 69.83. Mr. Rooter ranked highest at 69.83. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.25 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.09-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 | 230,783 | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| Population change since 2020 | 0.8% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Population density | 3,330.3 residents per square mile | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| Household count | 97,446 | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| Owner-occupied housing share | 58.8% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Renter-occupied housing share | 41.2% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Median owner-occupied home value | $363,500 | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Median household income | $70,064 | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Poverty rate | 13.8% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Recent-mover share | 16.8% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Age-65-and-older population share | 16.6% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-18 population share | 20.4% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 disability share | 13.2% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Supports modeled relationship | [1] [2] |
| Under-65 uninsured share | 6.4% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Civilian labor-force participation | 62.9% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Households with broadband subscription | 91.9% | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Retail sales per capita | $18,098 | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] [2] |
| Accommodation and food-services sales | $1.054 billion | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts | $4.748 billion | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [1] |
| Mean travel time to work | 20.6 minutes | 2020-2024 ACS-derived estimates, 2022 economic data, and July 1, 2025 population estimate as labeled | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [1] [2] |
| Food preparation and serving mean hourly wage | $21.22/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Mean hourly wage for building and grounds occupations | $21.39/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Office and administrative support mean hourly wage | $25.85/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Construction and extraction mean hourly wage | $34.50/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Installation, maintenance and repair mean hourly wage | $32.22/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Healthcare practitioners and technical mean hourly wage | $57.41/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [3] |
| Healthcare support mean hourly wage | $23.68/hour | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [3] |
| Healthcare support employment share | 7.2% | May 2025 | Spokane-Spokane Valley, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [3] |
| Residential units permitted | 1,340 units | 2021-2023 | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Multifamily units permitted | 984 multifamily units | 2021-2023 | Spokane, Washington | Used in scoring | [9] |
| Multifamily share of permitted residential units | 73.4% | 2021-2023 | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [9] |
| Average winter snowfall | 48 inches | Current climate summary as accessed September 3, 2026 | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [10] |
| Average annual precipitation | 16.5 inches | Current climate summary as accessed September 3, 2026 | Spokane, Washington | Context only | [10] |
| Visitor volume | 10.2 million visitors | 2025 | Spokane County, Washington | Context only | [14] |
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 Spokane, City Wide Facility Solutions reached 71.507. $4.748 billion health care and social assistance receipts and spokane-spokane valley, wa metropolitan statistical area together produced +1.67 points through target-market demand. [1] [17] [18] Regulatory and operating friction netted to -0.10 points after combining observed local relationships with a conservative or model-applied adjustment. Labor and staffing friction totaled -0.06 points, led by $21.39/hour mean wage for building and grounds occupations at -0.06 points. [3]
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 household income
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
Used for: Residential units permitted, Multifamily units permitted, and Multifamily share of permitted residential units
Used for: Average winter snowfall and Average annual precipitation
Used for: Visitor volume
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
