70.1 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in Toledo, Ohio
We compared 14 franchise concepts for Toledo, Ohio. Replacement and repair demand was a leading positive mechanism. Legacy-system service complexity 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
22Sources used
17Primary sources
29Local 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
0.6 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.5 points average reduction among 7 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 9 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for Toledo, Ohio
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and HomeSmiles produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Replacement and repair demand was the strongest positive scored mechanism among 7 exposed concepts, adding 0.6 points on average. One important asymmetry was that the same local condition supported replacement and repair demand while also creating legacy-system service complexity. These scores describe local operating alignment, not expected returns or overall franchise quality; the offered territory and franchise economics still require separate diligence.
How this differs from a directory: the model does not award points for brand popularity, advertising placement, or referral compensation. It tests how documented local conditions interact with each concept’s operating requirements.
Best franchise opportunities assessed
Top 10 local-alignment scores from 14 concepts assessed
“Best” refers to modeled local operating alignment among the concepts assessed—not expected earnings, franchise-system quality, or candidate fit.
Rankings use full-precision scores.Displayed values use one decimal place. Identical displayed scores can therefore have different ranks, and close results should be treated as effectively similar.
| Rank | Franchise | Alignment and tier | Largest advantage | Largest constraint | Evidence confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City WideFacility managementInvestment: $229,729–$410,730 | 71.6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.2 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.3 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.3 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.2 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.1 ptsTransportation, routing, and parking | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.7 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.7 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in Toledo, Ohio
Predominantly older housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while increasing diagnostic and licensed-trade complexity
The same local condition created complementary effects: replacement and repair demand supported exposed concepts while legacy-system service complexity constrained others. [5] [21]
recurring-commercial-service
This operating-model cluster separated from the broader set because its exposure to local support and constraints differed. The strongest positive factor was target-market demand, while the main constraint was transportation, routing, and parking. [4] [6] [19] [2] [1] [8] [10]
Named overlay districts, parcel zoning and corridor-specific projects create material site and territory variation
Requires the offered franchise territory and proposed site or service-base address to determine which zoning overlays, parcel rules, and active corridors apply. [16] [15]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Predominantly older housing stock supports repair and replacement demand while increasing diagnostic and licensed-trade complexity3 local facts · 2 modeled effects · 2 sources
- Residential rental properties with 1-4 units built before 1978 are required to meet lead-safe standards and maintain a Lead-Safe Certificate: unit count min: 1; unit count max: 4; construction year before: 1,978; certificate required: yes regulatory threshold [21]
- Housing units built in 1979 or earlier: 84 percent of housing units [5]
- Housing units built in 1939 or earlier: 32.1 percent of housing units [5]
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
Legacy-system service complexityLabor and staffing friction
Large health-care activity and named hospital systems create institution-facing service demand1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
University of Toledo creates a material institutional account base with demonstrated procurement activity1 modeled effect
University and government account demandTarget-market demand
High renter cost burden and elevated poverty constrain discretionary consumer purchasing power for affected households1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
Snow-response thresholds and possible emergency-route parking bans create recurring winter access friction1 modeled effect
Winter parking and access pressureTransportation, routing, and parking
Active 2026 major-road work can disrupt routes on affected Toledo corridors1 modeled effect
Temporary route disruptionTransportation, routing, and parking
Shopping-center and corridor sign-control overlays can require location-specific exterior-brand adaptation1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating friction
Formal public-institution procurement creates category-gated sales-cycle and bid-process friction1 modeled effect
Institutional procurement-cycle frictionSales and customer acquisition
Compare all assessed concepts
Local impact by franchise concept
14 concepts shown. Expand a concept to see the score-changing factors and their modeled drivers; the full audit ledger stays collapsed.
#1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.6
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.1 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 | +1.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.1 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +1.60 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#5
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.2 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 | +1.2 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Institutional procurement-cycle friction EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.98 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.98 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#9
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.6 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.2 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 |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.38 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.38 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.4
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.7 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.3 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 | +0.7 pts | |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.37 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#10
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.3
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.3 pts Target-market demandNo material negative local adjustment identified
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 | +0.3 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.28 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 20 — Outlets and Franchise Information
1 image
Full calculation and evidence confidence
Audit layer
Full factor ledger
Full score ledger
Every factor is classified so a displayed zero is not confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.3 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 70.28 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.3 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#11
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.2
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 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 |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Target-market demand | +0.2 pts | |
| Net local movement | +0.19 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +0.2 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.19 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.2 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#7Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.3 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 |
| +0.6 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | +0.02 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| 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 | -0.3 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.02 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#9
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
Pillar To Post Home Inspectors
Initial investment: $102,690–$134,290
Increase +0.3 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.2 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.01 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.3 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.99 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.0 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#12
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.1 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 |
| -0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.13 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| 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 included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.87 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.9 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Transportation, routing, and parking -0.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.7
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.7 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.7 pts Labor and staffing friction
Rank sensitivity: Highly sensitive
Why it ranks here
Score-changing local factors only. Evidence links open the underlying city finding.
| Local factor | Modeled drivers | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.32 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.7 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.68 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.7 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.64 |
| 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
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.6
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.7 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.7 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.42 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | +0.7 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.58 |
| 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
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #8–#13
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.6 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.8 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.3 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Temporary route disruption EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.49 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| 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 | -0.8 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.3 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.51 |
| Published local-market alignment | 69.5 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Adequate
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.8 pts
- Tested rank range
- #10–#14
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.4 pts Target-market demand
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 |
| -0.4 pts |
| Transportation, routing, and parking |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.58 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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | -0.4 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.2 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Not included in the score |
| Referral ecosystem | Not included in the score |
| Territory quality | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.42 |
| 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
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Strong
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#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 confused with missing, conditional, or non-applicable evidence.
| Neutral model baseline | 70.0 |
|---|---|
| Target-market demand | +1.7 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | Not included in the score |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | -0.1 |
| Real estate and site feasibility | Not included in the score |
| Sales and customer acquisition | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| 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 | 71.60 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.6 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model 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 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 14 concepts changed position. Jan-Pro International moved from #2 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank14
What we observed
- Median Household Income In 2024 Dollars, 2020 202449,724 USD per year
- Persons In Poverty24.3 percent
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue In 20223,877,054,000 USD
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.7 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.2 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.7 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.6 pts
ActionCOACHBusiness coaching
+0.3 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-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, 7 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #11 to #14, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.6 pts
Average across all concepts+0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank7
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.7 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.7 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.7 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.6 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.6 pts
Observed model effectMixed or model dependent
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 7 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 11 concepts changed position. ZOOM DRAIN moved from #10 to #4, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected-0.5 pts
Average across all concepts-0.3 pts
Concepts changing rank11
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.8 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.8 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.8 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.7 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.3 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 #4 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted13 of 14
Average among affected-0.2 pts
Average across all concepts-0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Residential Streets Are Not Routinely Salted And Are Not Plowed Unless A Stage 3 Storm Exceeds 3 Inches; Parking Bans May Be Imposed On Tarta Bus And Snow Emergency Routes In Extreme Weatherresidential plow threshold inches: 3; residential routine salting: no; emergency route parking ban possible: yes winter operations rule
- The Planned 2026 Reconstruction Of Secor Road From Dorr Street To Central Avenue Was Paused For Corridor Re Evaluationstatus: paused; update date: 2025-11-20; 2024 average daily traffic: 19,245 project status and AADT
- Alexis Road Construction Began July 13, 2026 And I 75 Ramps Are Closed During Stated Nighttime Work Hourswork hours: 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.; I 75 ramps closed during work hours: yes project access condition
Concepts challenged most
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-0.3 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-0.3 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-0.3 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
-0.3 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-0.3 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
- Referral ecosystemNo material score adjustment
- Territory qualityNo material score adjustment
- Regulatory and operating frictionNo material score adjustment
Rank stability
Which positions depend most on individual assumptions?
The line shows the best and worst rank reached when one factor was removed from every concept. A narrow range indicates a more stable position.
#1 City WideHighly sensitive · tested #1–#5
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalHighly sensitive · tested #2–#9
#3 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #3–#10
#5 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#11
#6 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#7 PuroCleanHighly sensitive · tested #1–#9
#8 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #3–#12
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#10 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#12 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #8–#13
#13 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #10–#14
#14 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #7–#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] [5] [6] [8] [10] [20] [1]Property replacement-cycle demand: [5] [21] [1]Competitive environment: [22] [4] [20] [3]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [5] [6] [2]Transportation, routing, and parking: [16] [17] [18] [19] [3]Real estate and site feasibility: [20] [6] [13] [15] [1]Sales and customer acquisition: [9] [10] [11] [22]Referral ecosystem: [6] [10] [11] [4]Territory quality: [12] [13] [15] [16] [18] [3]Regulatory and operating friction: [12] [13] [14] [15] [21] [2] [3]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction | Transportation, routing, and parking |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.7 pts | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.2 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts |
| #3 HomeSmiles | +0.6 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +0.7 pts | — | — | -0.3 pts |
| #5 ActionCOACH | +0.3 pts | — | — | — |
| #6 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.5 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #7 PuroClean | — | +0.6 pts | -0.3 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #8 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts | -0.1 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | — | -0.1 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.7 pts | -0.7 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.7 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #12 Aire Serv | — | +0.7 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #13 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.6 pts | -0.8 pts | -0.3 pts |
| #14 Workout Anytime | -0.4 pts | — | — | -0.2 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from target-market demand while remaining less exposed to labor and staffing friction. The same city condition can help one operating model and constrain another, so score differences should be read through each concept's factor pattern rather than as a universal franchise-quality verdict. The ordering is most assumption-sensitive for City Wide, Jan-Pro International, HomeSmiles; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Local evidence assessed for modeling
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in Toledo, Ohio
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.1Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in Toledo, Ohio
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 70.0 to 70.2. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.2. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.5 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.3 points on average.
Interpret cautiously: A 0.2-point spread is too small to support a strong brand-level conclusion from city alignment alone.
- Concepts compared
- 2
- Score range
- 70.0–70.2
- Category average
- 70.1
Rainbow International Restoration70.2
PuroClean70.0
Metric registry
The 29 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 | 263,423people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | -2.8percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 118,662households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024 | 53.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Context only | [4] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024 | 49,724USD per year | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Persons in poverty | 24.3percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 3,877,054,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | Toledo, Ohio | Used in scoring | [4] |
| Renter households paying more than 30 percent of monthly income toward housing costs | 52.4percent of renter households | Primarily 2022 ACS five-year data for housing profile | Toledo, Ohio | Used in scoring | [5] |
| Housing units built in 1979 or earlier | 84percent of housing units | Primarily 2022 ACS five-year data for housing profile | Toledo, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Housing units built in 1939 or earlier | 32.1percent of housing units | Primarily 2022 ACS five-year data for housing profile | Toledo, Ohio | Supports modeled relationship | [5] |
| Residential rental properties with 1-4 units built before 1978 are required to meet lead-safe standards and maintain a Lead-Safe Certificate | unit count min: 1; unit count max: 4; construction year before: 1,978; certificate required: yesregulatory threshold | Current requirements accessed August 2026 | Toledo residential rentals with 1-4 units built before 1978 | Supports modeled relationship | [21] |
| Education and health services payroll employment in the Toledo HMA in first quarter 2025 | 52,000jobs | Economic and housing conditions through April-May 2025 | Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Largest-employer table lists ProMedica and Mercy Health as major Toledo HMA employers | ProMedica: 15,000; Mercy Health: 8,800employees reported by HUD table | Economic and housing conditions through April-May 2025 | Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Used in scoring | [6] |
| University of Toledo fall 2025 enrollment | 14,290students | Fall 2025 | University of Toledo | Used in scoring | [8] |
| University of Toledo issued RFP FY26-15 for regulated medical waste and sharps management | issue date: 2026-05-07; due date: 2026-06-05; status as of 2026 07 20: Pendingprocurement record | Active and pending RFPs through July 20, 2026 | University of Toledo | Used in scoring | [10] |
| University competitive bid event thresholds for a single supplier annually | goods over USD: 50,000; services over USD: 75,000USD threshold | Current procurement thresholds accessed August 2026 | University of Toledo | Conditional relationship | [9] |
| City procurement uses PlanetBids and requires vendor registration for many opportunities under $10,000 | platform: PlanetBids; under 10000 vendor registration required: yesprocurement process | Current rules accessed August 2026 | Toledo, Ohio | Conditional relationship | [11] |
| Selected Toledo MSA major occupational wages and employment shares in May 2025 | all occupations mean hourly USD: 29.43; US all occupations mean hourly USD: 33.54; office admin mean hourly USD: 23.25; US office admin mean hourly USD: 24.79; construction extraction mean hourly USD: 32.53; US construction extraction mean hourly USD: 31.42; installation maintenance repair mean hourly USD: 29.97; US installation maintenance repair mean hourly USD: 30.44; additional values omittedmixed wage and share metrics | May 2025 | Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Context only | [7] |
| Toledo zoning includes multiple overlay districts, including Shopping Center Sign Control, Monroe Street Corridor and Reynolds Road Sign Overlay | Shopping Center Sign Control Overlay, Monroe Street Corridor UNO, Reynolds Road Sign Overlay, Downtown Overlay, Historic Overlay, Maumee Riverfront Overlaynamed overlay districts | 2026 S-104 current code accessed August 2026 | Toledo, Ohio | Conditional relationship | [12] [13] [3] |
| A zoning map amendment has a $600 review fee and an average 90-day review process | review fee USD: 600; average review days: 90permit process metric | Current process accessed August 2026 | Toledo, Ohio | Conditional relationship | [15] |
| Drive-through facilities are separately regulated under Toledo Zoning Code §1104.0800 and principal-use eligibility is determined through the use table | code section: 1104.0800; use table section: 1104.0100code reference | 2026 S-104 current code accessed August 2026 | Toledo, Ohio | Context only | [14] [2] |
| Named major-road projects scheduled in Toledo during 2026 | Summit Street Cycle Track, Sylvania Avenue, Arlington Avenue, Secor Road Laskey-Alexis, Executive Parkway, Alexis Road, Cherry-Bancroft Intersection, Douglas-Monroe Intersectionprojects | 2026 construction program | Toledo, Ohio | Conditional relationship | [16] |
| Alexis Road construction began July 13, 2026 and I-75 ramps are closed during stated nighttime work hours | work hours: 7 p.m. to 6 a.m.; I 75 ramps closed during work hours: yesproject access condition | Construction beginning July 13, 2026 | Alexis Road from I-75 to Suder Avenue, Toledo | Conditional relationship | [17] |
| The planned 2026 reconstruction of Secor Road from Dorr Street to Central Avenue was paused for corridor re-evaluation | status: paused; update date: 2025-11-20; 2024 average daily traffic: 19,245project status and AADT | 2025-2026 project status and 2024 traffic count | Secor Road, Dorr Street to Central Avenue, Toledo | Conditional relationship | [18] [3] |
| Residential streets are not routinely salted and are not plowed unless a stage 3 storm exceeds 3 inches; parking bans may be imposed on TARTA bus and snow-emergency routes in extreme weather | residential plow threshold inches: 3; residential routine salting: no; emergency route parking ban possible: yeswinter operations rule | Current winter operations accessed August 2026 | Toledo, Ohio | Used in scoring | [19] |
| Toledo office market vacancy rate in June 2026 | 16.91percent | First half / June 2026 | Toledo office market | Context only | [20] |
| Toledo apartment market vacancy rate at mid-year 2026 | 3.2percent | First half / June 2026 | Toledo apartment market | Supports research conclusion | [20] |
| Class A apartment vacancy rate in the Toledo HMA in spring 2025 | 14.5percent | Economic and housing conditions through April-May 2025 | Toledo, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area | Supports research conclusion | [6] |
| Top industrial transactions reported for the first half of 2026 accounted for 1.36 million square feet in new deals; the survey also reported increased new construction | top transactions new deals sqft: 1,360,000; new construction direction: increased; class A leasing rate note: over $9 per square footmarket activity summary | First half / June 2026 | Toledo industrial market | Context only | [20] |
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 that apply without an unresolved site, territory, customer, or project gate.
Preserve conditional effects
Keep location- or territory-dependent issues visible for diligence without automatically changing the score.
Test rank sensitivity
Remove one factor at a time from every concept and rerank using full-precision scores.
Generate public output
Create the ranking, factor-status ledger, visuals, metric registry, and automated quality report from the same data.
How the common baseline becomes a city-specific score
Every concept starts from the same 70.0 reference point, so differences come only from modeled local interactions. In this city, City Wide reached 71.60 after target-market demand +1.7 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 local metrics it supports. Internal or supplied research is not presented as independently accessible evidence.
- 1Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Opportunities in U.S. Sub-Markets: A Utility Delta AuditInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Forensic Municipal Audit: Structural Constraints and Hidden Capital FrictionsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Drive-through facilities are separately regulated under Toledo Zoning Code §1104.0800 and principal-use eligibility is determined through the use table
- 3Franchise data - remake - des.csvInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
Used for: Toledo zoning includes multiple overlay districts, including Shopping Center Sign Control, Monroe Street Corridor and Reynolds Road Sign Overlay and The planned 2026 reconstruction of Secor Road from Dorr Street to Central Avenue was paused for corridor re-evaluation
- 4QuickFacts: Toledo city, Ohio
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, Owner-occupied housing unit rate, 2020-2024, and Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024
- 52025-2030 Analysis of Impediments and Fair Housing Action Plan - Draft for Public Comment
Used for: Renter households paying more than 30 percent of monthly income toward housing costs, Housing units built in 1979 or earlier, and Housing units built in 1939 or earlier
- 6HUD PD&R Housing Market Profile: Toledo, Ohio
Used for: Education and health services payroll employment in the Toledo HMA in first quarter 2025, Largest-employer table lists ProMedica and Mercy Health as major Toledo HMA employers, and Class A apartment vacancy rate in the Toledo HMA in spring 2025
- 7Occupational Employment and Wages in Toledo — May 2025
Used for: Selected Toledo MSA major occupational wages and employment shares in May 2025
- 8Fall Enrollment Numbers Celebrate Student Success
Used for: University of Toledo fall 2025 enrollment
- 9Purchasing Services: Procedures
Used for: University competitive bid event thresholds for a single supplier annually
- 10Purchasing Services: Request for Proposal
Used for: University of Toledo issued RFP FY26-15 for regulated medical waste and sharps management
- 11How to do Business with the City
Used for: City procurement uses PlanetBids and requires vendor registration for many opportunities under $10,000
- 12Chapter 1103 Overlay Zoning Districts
Used for: Toledo zoning includes multiple overlay districts, including Shopping Center Sign Control, Monroe Street Corridor and Reynolds Road Sign Overlay
- 13Toledo GIS Zoning Map and Overlay District Layer
Used for: Toledo zoning includes multiple overlay districts, including Shopping Center Sign Control, Monroe Street Corridor and Reynolds Road Sign Overlay
- 14Chapter 1104 Use Regulations and §1104.0800 Drive-through Facilities
Used for: Drive-through facilities are separately regulated under Toledo Zoning Code §1104.0800 and principal-use eligibility is determined through the use table
- 15Zone Change
Used for: A zoning map amendment has a $600 review fee and an average 90-day review process
- 16Major Roads Construction
Used for: Named major-road projects scheduled in Toledo during 2026
- 17Alexis Rd. 2026
Used for: Alexis Road construction began July 13, 2026 and I-75 ramps are closed during stated nighttime work hours
- 18Secor Rd. Corridor
Used for: The planned 2026 reconstruction of Secor Road from Dorr Street to Central Avenue was paused for corridor re-evaluation
- 19Snow and Ice Removal
Used for: Residential streets are not routinely salted and are not plowed unless a stage 3 storm exceeds 3 inches; parking bans may be imposed on TARTA bus and snow-emergency routes in extreme weather
- 20Toledo Market Trends: Mid-Year 2026 Industrial, Apartment, Office and Retail Marketview Surveys
Used for: Toledo office market vacancy rate in June 2026, Toledo apartment market vacancy rate at mid-year 2026, and Top industrial transactions reported for the first half of 2026 accounted for 1.36 million square feet in new deals; the survey also reported increased new construction
- 21Lead Safe Requirements for Property Owners
Used for: Residential rental properties with 1-4 units built before 1978 are required to meet lead-safe standards and maintain a Lead-Safe Certificate
- 22
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.