69.7 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Syracuse, New York
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Syracuse, New York. University and government account demand was a leading positive mechanism. Skilled-trade labor competition was a leading operating constraint.
What “best” means in this ranking“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page. It does not estimate earnings or determine which franchise is best for a particular candidate.
14Concepts evaluated
24Sources used
14Primary sources
26Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.7 points average among 7 affected concepts
1 point average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 10 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Syracuse, New York
City Wide, ActionCOACH, and Jan-Pro International produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. University and government account demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 6 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. Skilled-trade labor competition was the broadest operating constraint, reducing exposed concepts by 1 point on average. Mister Sparky Electric was especially relationship-sensitive: removing skilled-trade labor competition moved it from #12 to #9 in the full model rerun. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.3 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 71.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsReferral ecosystem | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 70.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.9 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.8 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Workout AnytimeFitnessInvestment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 69.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.6 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 69.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Syracuse, New York
Large university and public academic-medical institutions create a durable institutional account and professional-referral base
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: SUNY Upstate Medical University identifies itself as the region’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees: 13,000 employees minimum. [16] [3] [1] [15]
Micron/Bechtel construction ramp is creating a large, directly overlapping regional demand for skilled construction trades
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 1 point on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Syracuse MSA unemployment rate in June 2026: 3.9 percent. [22] [18] [17] [2]
skilled-trade-route-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was property replacement-cycle demand, while the main constraint was labor and staffing friction. [22] [5] [6] [18] [10] [8] [9] [17] [1] [7] [11]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Large university and public academic-medical institutions create a durable institutional account and professional-referral base2 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 4 sources
- SUNY Upstate Medical University identifies itself as the region’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees: 13,000 employees minimum [16] [3] [1]
- Syracuse University enrollment, faculty and staff scale: total enrollment: 22K+; faculty: 2,100+; staff: 5,300+ people reported as rounded counts [15] [3] [1]
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
Institutional professional relationship baseReferral ecosystem
Heavy winter operations and recurring parking controls create seasonal access friction for vehicle- and parking-dependent formats1 modeled effect
Winter parking and access pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Micron/Bechtel construction ramp is creating a large, directly overlapping regional demand for skilled construction trades1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.8
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.3 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Stable
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.3 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.77 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
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 | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#2
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.9 pts Referral ecosystemNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.9 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.31 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 applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.9 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.31 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Referral ecosystem +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#3
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.5
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.49 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
1 image
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.0 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.49 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#7
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.5 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.23 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 | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.5 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.26 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.74 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.9 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.9 pts | |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.31 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 | +0.9 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.69 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.9 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#10
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.36 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.64 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#14
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.6 pts Transportation, routing, and parking
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.6 pts |
| Referral ecosystem |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.41 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 | +0.6 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.1 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.59 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#9
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.61 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.4 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.39 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.4 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.72 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.4 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.7
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +1.1 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.1 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.28 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
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 | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +1.1 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.72 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.7 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.8 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.6 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.6 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.2
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.6 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.78 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.22 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #11–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment68.1
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Moderately sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -1.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.7 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -1.85 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.7 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 68.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 68.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Strong
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #12–#14
No franchise concepts match the selected filters.
Worked score example
How we calculated City Wide
This example uses the same ledger shown for every concept and must reconcile exactly to the published score.
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not mistaken for a score-changing effect.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | +0.6 |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.77 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.8 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
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 effectMixed or model dependent
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 6 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 9 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #3 to #7, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted6 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank9
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.3 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.6 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.4 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.4 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, 11 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #4 to #9, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.7 pts
Average across all concepts+0.4 pts
Concepts changing rank11
What we observed
- Residential Properties Described By The 2026 City Housing Strategy As Visibly In Decline33.3 percent approximate
- Days With Minimum Temperature At Or Below 32°f In Syracuse In 2025 Compared With Normalobserved 2025 days: 137; normal 1991 2020 days: 132.5
- Records In The City Of Syracuse Unfit Properties Dataset As Updated August 7, 2026298 records
Concepts helped most
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+1.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.9 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.9 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.5 pts
Observed model effectMaterial local friction
Labor and staffing friction
We compared each concept’s frontline and specialist staffing requirements with the local labor environment.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Aire Serv moved from #11 to #6, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-1.0 pts
Average across all concepts-0.7 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Syracuse Msa Unemployment Rate In June 20263.9 percent
- Micron/bechtel Construction Workforce Ramp In Clay With Direct Skilled Trade Relevance To The Syracuse Labor Shedproject construction jobs expected over: 4,500; skilled trade professionals worked to date over: 180; bechtel job listings july 2026: 88; construction workers expected by june 2027 about: 3,000; peak construction workers up to: 4,200; first fab expected open: 2030; second fab expected open: 2033 workers and timing
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.8 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
Transportation, routing, and parking
We recalculated route-dependent models after accounting for travel corridors, parking, and the number of productive stops they require.
Why concepts react differently
We applied a measurable adjustment to 13 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 8 concepts changed position. FASTSIGNS moved from #8 to #5, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Syracuse Annual Snowfall In 2025 Compared With The 1991 2020 Normalobserved 2025 inches: 172.9; normal 1991 2020 inches: 127.8; departure inches: 45.1
- Seasonal And Event Based Parking Controls Used To Keep Syracuse Streets Passable For Snowplowsdowntown season: November 1-April 1; enforcement: ticketing and towing may apply; operating reason: clearance for plows and access routes rule summary
- Current Phase Two / Contract 6 Scope Of The I 81 Viaduct Project In Syracusecontract value usd: 2,100,000,000; elevated highway removed miles: 1.4; i690 lane miles removed and rebuilt: 15; local streets rehabilitated or reconstructed: 25; status: work set to begin / Phase Two active project scope
Concepts challenged most
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.7 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.7 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.6 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.6 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 3 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 2 concepts changed position. ActionCOACH moved from #2 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted3 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.1 pts
Concepts changing rank2
Concepts helped most
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.9 pts
City WideFacility management
+0.6 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.1 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Real estate and site feasibilityNo material score adjustment
- Sales and customer acquisitionNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideStable · tested #1–#2
#2 ActionCOACHModerately sensitive · tested #1–#3
#3 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#7
#4 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#9
#5 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#6 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #4–#10
#7 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #4–#14
#8 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #5–#9
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#10 HomeSmilesModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#11 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#12 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#14
#13 ZOOM DRAINModerately sensitive · tested #11–#13
#14 Mr. RooterModerately sensitive · tested #12–#14
Neutralizing a factor removes it from every concept. A concept can move down even when its own score improves because competitors may benefit more.
Original factor comparison
How each factor affected the highest-rated franchise concepts
The graph includes the top 14 concepts by local-alignment score. Only nonzero score contributions are plotted. A factor is removed when every displayed concept received 0.0 points from it. Hover or focus a concept name to highlight all of its remaining data points.
Primary source records by factorTarget-market demand: [4] [24] [15] [16] [14] [17] [1] [3]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [1]Competitive environment: [24] [4] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [17] [18] [22] [23] [16] [15]Transportation, routing, and parking: [8] [11] [12] [2] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [13] [14] [21] [19] [1] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [24] [4] [3]Referral ecosystem: [15] [16] [17] [24] [3]Territory quality: [13] [14] [12] [20] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [19] [20] [21] [23] [3] [2]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking | Referral ecosystem |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.3 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts | +0.6 pts |
| #2 ActionCOACH | +0.4 pts | — | — | — | +0.9 pts |
| #3 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts | — | — | -0.5 pts | — |
| #4 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.9 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.5 pts | — |
| #5 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.5 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #6 PuroClean | — | +0.9 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #7 Workout Anytime | — | — | — | -0.4 pts | — |
| #8 FASTSIGNS | +0.6 pts | — | -0.6 pts | -0.6 pts | +0.1 pts |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.4 pts | -0.3 pts | — |
| #10 HomeSmiles | +0.4 pts | — | -0.7 pts | -0.4 pts | — |
| #11 Aire Serv | — | +1.1 pts | -1.8 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #12 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.6 pts | -1.8 pts | -0.6 pts | — |
| #13 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.5 pts | -1.6 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
| #14 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.5 pts | -1.7 pts | -0.7 pts | — |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, ActionCOACH, Jan-Pro International led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from property replacement-cycle demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for Jan-Pro International, Rainbow International Restoration, Pillar To Post Home Inspectors; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Syracuse, New York
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
69.7Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Syracuse, New York
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.7 to 69.8. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 69.8. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.9 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.8 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
- 69.7–69.8
- Category average
- 69.7
Rainbow International Restoration69.8
PuroClean69.7
Metric registry
The 26 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 | 144,896people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts | Syracuse, New York | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.5percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts | Syracuse, New York | Context only | [4] |
| Estimated households, 2020-2024 | 59,816households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts | Syracuse, New York | Context only | [4] |
| Persons in poverty, 2020-2024 | 28.8percent of persons | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 sales/receipts | Syracuse, New York | Context only | [4] |
| Employer establishments in Onondaga County in 2023 | 11,166employer establishments | 2023 County Business Patterns; 2024 ACS profile values | Onondaga County, New York | Context only | [24] |
| Median year structure built in the City of Syracuse housing stock in the 2016 ACS 5-year data used by the 2019 study | 1,946year | Primarily ACS 2016 5-year housing data and 2018 economic data | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [5] [1] |
| Housing units built in 1939 or earlier in the City of Syracuse, 2016 ACS 5-year data | 42.8percent of housing units | Primarily ACS 2016 5-year housing data and 2018 economic data | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Residential properties described by the 2026 City housing strategy as visibly in decline | 33.3percent approximate | Housing conditions based on Syracuse Housing Study field work and current strategy as updated March 2026 | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Records in the City of Syracuse Unfit Properties dataset as updated August 7, 2026 | 298records | Dataset updated August 7, 2026 | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Syracuse annual snowfall in 2025 compared with the 1991-2020 normal | observed 2025 inches: 172.9; normal 1991 2020 inches: 127.8; departure inches: 45.1inches | Calendar year 2025; climate normals 1991-2020 | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [8] [1] |
| Days with minimum temperature at or below 32°F in Syracuse in 2025 compared with normal | observed 2025 days: 137; normal 1991 2020 days: 132.5days | Calendar year 2025; climate normals 1991-2020 | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [8] [9] |
| Seasonal and event-based parking controls used to keep Syracuse streets passable for snowplows | downtown season: November 1-April 1; enforcement: ticketing and towing may apply; operating reason: clearance for plows and access routesrule summary | Current winter-parking rules accessed August 2026; seasonal rules run November 1-April 1 in designated downtown blocks | Syracuse, New York | Used in scoring | [11] |
| Current Phase Two / Contract 6 scope of the I-81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse | contract value usd: 2,100,000,000; elevated highway removed miles: 1.4; i690 lane miles removed and rebuilt: 15; local streets rehabilitated or reconstructed: 25; status: work set to begin / Phase Two activeproject scope | Phase Two / Contract 6 status as of July 3, 2026 | I-81 / I-690 and connected local streets in Syracuse | Conditional relationship | [12] [2] [3] |
| Contract 6 closes/removes existing I-81/I-690 connecting ramps and stages I-690 reconstruction with city-street detours | existing i81 i690 link ramps: closed and removed during reconstruction; reconstruction method: staged to maintain traffic flow with detours onto city streetsroute change summary | Phase Two / Contract 6 status as of July 3, 2026 | I-81 / I-690 Phase Two work zone in Syracuse | Conditional relationship | [12] |
| Overall Syracuse industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 | 5.5percent | Second quarter 2026 | Syracuse, NY industrial market | Conditional relationship | [13] [1] |
| Office/service/flex vacancy rate and current demand note in the Syracuse industrial market, Q2 2026 | office service flex vacancy percent: 4; office service flex inventory sqft: 2,823,606; vacant sqft: 112,828; most sought after quality size range sqft: 10,000-20,000 with dock and/or drive-inmarket metric | Second quarter 2026 | Syracuse, NY industrial market | Conditional relationship | [13] [1] |
| Industrial vacancy by Syracuse submarket in Q2 2026 | East: 8.4; North: 4.9; South: 1.9; West: 0.5percent vacancy | Second quarter 2026 | Syracuse industrial East/North/South/West submarkets | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Syracuse CBD office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026 | cbd vacancy percent: 13.9; cbd asking rent usd psf: 18.87; market vacancy percent: 11.4; market ytd net absorption sqft: 183,104market metric | Second quarter 2026 | Syracuse Central Business District and overall office market | Conditional relationship | [14] [1] |
| Syracuse University enrollment, faculty and staff scale | total enrollment: 22K+; faculty: 2,100+; staff: 5,300+people reported as rounded counts | Current institutional facts accessed August 2026 | Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York | Supports modeled relationship | [15] [3] [1] |
| SUNY Upstate Medical University identifies itself as the region’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees | 13,000employees minimum | Current institutional facts accessed August 2026 | SUNY Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York | Supports modeled relationship | [16] [3] [1] |
| Micron/Bechtel construction workforce ramp in Clay with direct skilled-trade relevance to the Syracuse labor shed | project construction jobs expected over: 4,500; skilled trade professionals worked to date over: 180; bechtel job listings july 2026: 88; construction workers expected by june 2027 about: 3,000; peak construction workers up to: 4,200; first fab expected open: 2030; second fab expected open: 2033workers and timing | June 2026 employment; NYS Job Bank postings as of July 27, 2026; Micron/Bechtel developments as of June-July 2026 | Micron semiconductor complex, Clay, Onondaga County | Used in scoring | [17] [18] [2] |
| Syracuse MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.9percent | June 2026 labor force and payroll employment; extracted August 6, 2026 | Syracuse, NY metropolitan statistical area | Used in scoring | [22] |
| New York State basic minimum wage applicable to Syracuse in 2026 | 16usd per hour | Rates effective January 1-December 31, 2026 | Remainder of New York State, including Syracuse | Context only | [23] |
| Certificate of Appropriateness is required for exterior work, including signage, on locally designated Protected Sites and properties in Preservation Districts | covered work includes: signage and other exterior alterations; pre application conference: required; public hearing: required; decision window after hearing days: 62; approval default validity: one yearrule summary | Current 2026 application and review process | Locally designated Protected Sites and Preservation Districts in Syracuse | Conditional relationship | [19] [20] [3] |
| Locally designated Syracuse Preservation Districts identified by the Landmark Preservation Board | preservation districts: Berkeley Park, Columbus Circle, Hanover Square, Sedgwick/Highland/James; locally designated protected sites count: 60districts and sites | Current preservation designations and review rules accessed August 2026 | Locally designated preservation geographies in Syracuse | Conditional relationship | [20] |
| Syracuse Special Assessment Districts are subject to additional charges that supplement enhanced City services | districts: Downtown Business District, Crouse Marshall Business District; charge character: additional charges; property-specific lists provided by Cityrule summary | Current special assessment district status accessed August 2026 | Downtown and Crouse Marshall Special Assessment Districts, Syracuse | Context only | [21] [3] |
How to use the ranking
What the model can and cannot establish
- Scores measure local operating alignment, not expected financial performance or franchise-system quality.
- Citywide evidence may not describe the exact site or territory ultimately offered.
- Conditional effects are shown for diligence but do not change the published score until their applicability is established.
Methodology
How the local-alignment ranking is calculated
Measure the city
Collect reusable local metrics with source, period, geography, and confidence fields.
Profile each operating model
Map each franchise to controlled operating attributes and local sensitivities.
Apply scoreable effects
Score only effects whose applicability is established at the report’s current geographic and operating scope.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.77 after target-market demand +1.3 pts, referral ecosystem +0.6 pts, and transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts. The current model caps total local movement at ±18.0 points. The score is not a percentage, probability, or estimate of investment quality.
Precision and materiality
Calculations use full-precision values. Published scores and factor contributions display one decimal place, while ranks use full precision. Effects smaller than 0.1 points are identified as below the publication threshold rather than presented as a meaningful zero.
Score tiers
Tier 1 · Strongest modeled alignment80.0–100.0
Tier 2 · Favorable modeled alignment72.0–<80.0
Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment64.0–<72.0
Tier 4 · Higher-friction modeled alignment0.0–<64.0
How factor rows are classified
Positive local adjustmentNegative local adjustmentMeasured; no meaningful local adjustmentEffect below the publication thresholdNot applicable to this operating modelDepends on the specific site, territory, or operating conditionNot included in the score
What “best” means here
“Best” means the strongest modeled local operating alignment among the franchise concepts assessed on this page.
Model governance
How this report is calculated and corrected
Calculation controls
- Model designer
- Thomas Jepsen
No concept’s final score is manually raised or lowered after calculation. Before this template is activated, the report is reviewed for source scope, classification, arithmetic, unsupported claims, duplication, and readability.
Model history
- Model 0.9.0-calibration · August 19, 2026Added compiler-derived decision intelligence and observation usage mapping., Changed factor sensitivity and channel counterfactuals to full model reruns., Added data-dependent city content signals while preserving legacy public report fields., and Added model-owned semantic compatibility gates and backward-compatible channel-level evidence attribution.
Corrections policy
Corrected source, geography, or operating-profile evidence triggers a full compiler rerun so every dependent score and visual is recalculated.
Source registry
Evidence represented in this report
Each source identifies its period, scope, and the claims or metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is clearly distinguished from publicly accessible evidence.
- 1Supplied multi-city structural operating research docket (I 102)Internal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Median year structure built in the City of Syracuse housing stock in the 2016 ACS 5-year data used by the 2019 study, Syracuse annual snowfall in 2025 compared with the 1991-2020 normal, Overall Syracuse industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026, Office/service/flex vacancy rate and current demand note in the Syracuse industrial market, Q2 2026, and Syracuse CBD office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026
- 2Forensic Audit of Structural Constraints and Latent Jurisdictional RisksInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Current Phase Two / Contract 6 scope of the I-81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse and Micron/Bechtel construction workforce ramp in Clay with direct skilled-trade relevance to the Syracuse labor shed
- 3Franchise data - remake - aug(9).csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Current Phase Two / Contract 6 scope of the I-81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse, Syracuse University enrollment, faculty and staff scale, SUNY Upstate Medical University identifies itself as the region’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees, Certificate of Appropriateness is required for exterior work, including signage, on locally designated Protected Sites and properties in Preservation Districts, and Syracuse Special Assessment Districts are subject to additional charges that supplement enhanced City services
- 4U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Syracuse city, New York
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from the April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Estimated households, 2020-2024, and Persons in poverty, 2020-2024
- 5City of Syracuse Commercial Corridor Study: City-Wide Economic Base Analysis
Used for: Median year structure built in the City of Syracuse housing stock in the 2016 ACS 5-year data used by the 2019 study and Housing units built in 1939 or earlier in the City of Syracuse, 2016 ACS 5-year data
- 6Syracuse Housing Strategy Fact Sheet
Used for: Residential properties described by the 2026 City housing strategy as visibly in decline
- 7Unfit Properties
Used for: Records in the City of Syracuse Unfit Properties dataset as updated August 7, 2026
- 8Syracuse NY Climate Summary for the Year of 2025
Used for: Syracuse annual snowfall in 2025 compared with the 1991-2020 normal and Days with minimum temperature at or below 32°F in Syracuse in 2025 compared with normal
- 9Climate Impact Spotlight: The Central/Finger Lakes Region
Used for: Days with minimum temperature at or below 32°F in Syracuse in 2025 compared with normal
- 10
- 11Parking in Winter
Used for: Seasonal and event-based parking controls used to keep Syracuse streets passable for snowplows
- 12State DOT Announces Major Milestone as Construction Is Set to Begin on Phase Two of the Interstate 81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse
Used for: Current Phase Two / Contract 6 scope of the I-81 Viaduct Project in Syracuse and Contract 6 closes/removes existing I-81/I-690 connecting ramps and stages I-690 reconstruction with city-street detours
- 13Syracuse, NY Industrial MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Overall Syracuse industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026, Office/service/flex vacancy rate and current demand note in the Syracuse industrial market, Q2 2026, and Industrial vacancy by Syracuse submarket in Q2 2026
- 14Syracuse, New York Office MarketBeat Q2 2026
Used for: Syracuse CBD office vacancy and asking rent in Q2 2026
- 15Facts and Figures
Used for: Syracuse University enrollment, faculty and staff scale
- 16About Upstate
Used for: SUNY Upstate Medical University identifies itself as the region’s largest employer with over 13,000 employees
- 17Central New York Jobs, June 2026
Used for: Micron/Bechtel construction workforce ramp in Clay with direct skilled-trade relevance to the Syracuse labor shed
- 18Micron Selects Bechtel as Construction Partner for Historic New York Semiconductor Project
Used for: Micron/Bechtel construction workforce ramp in Clay with direct skilled-trade relevance to the Syracuse labor shed
- 19Certificate of Appropriateness Application Instructions
Used for: Certificate of Appropriateness is required for exterior work, including signage, on locally designated Protected Sites and properties in Preservation Districts
- 20Historic Properties List & Preservation Review
Used for: Certificate of Appropriateness is required for exterior work, including signage, on locally designated Protected Sites and properties in Preservation Districts and Locally designated Syracuse Preservation Districts identified by the Landmark Preservation Board
- 21Special Business Districts
Used for: Syracuse Special Assessment Districts are subject to additional charges that supplement enhanced City services
- 22Syracuse, NY Economy at a Glance
Used for: Syracuse MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 23New York State Minimum Wage (P700-English)
Used for: New York State basic minimum wage applicable to Syracuse in 2026
- 24Onondaga County, New York - Census Bureau Profile
Used for: Employer establishments in Onondaga County in 2023
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.