70.0 average across 2 concepts
Local operating-model alignment analysis
Best Franchise Opportunities We Assessed in York, Pennsylvania
We compared 14 franchise concepts for York, Pennsylvania. Healthcare institutional service 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
20Sources used
13Primary sources
30Local metrics
Evaluation set
Why these concepts were evaluated
This is not a ranking of every franchise that may be offered in the city.
14Concepts assessed
Concepts were included when enough operating-model information existed to assign a provisional local-sensitivity profile. Unresolved inputs reduce confidence or remain conditional rather than automatically excluding a concept.
A brand’s participation in our referral network does not add points or change its position.
City-level conclusions
What stood out in our assessment
0.5 points average among 7 affected concepts
0.7 points average reduction among 10 affected concepts
Tested rank range spans 11 positions
Executive conclusion
What the ranking means for York, Pennsylvania
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, and ActionCOACH produced the highest modeled local-alignment scores in the evaluated set. Healthcare institutional service 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 0.7 points on average. City Wide was especially relationship-sensitive: removing healthcare institutional service demand moved it from #1 to #2 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 | 71.4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.4 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 2 | Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaningInvestment: $130,000–$421,500 | 71.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +1.0 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 3 | ActionCOACHBusiness coachingInvestment: $71,668–$303,513 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.2 ptsTarget-market demand | No material negative local adjustment | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 4 | FASTSIGNSSigns and graphicsInvestment: $231,226–$386,285 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.4 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 5 | Rainbow International RestorationRestorationInvestment: $185,336–$351,900 | 70.1Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 6 | HomeSmilesProperty maintenance servicesInvestment: $148,110–$201,800 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.5 ptsTarget-market demand | -0.5 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 7 | Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHome inspectionInvestment: $102,690–$134,290 | 70.0Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.3 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 8 | PuroCleanRestorationInvestment: $54,575–$262,145 | 69.9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.4 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -0.6 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 9 | Tiger AdjustersPublic insurance adjustingInvestment: $43,050–$159,500 | 69.8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | No material positive local adjustment | -0.2 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
| 10 | ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer serviceInvestment: $266,250–$570,500 | 69.5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment | +0.6 ptsProperty replacement-cycle demand | -1.1 ptsLabor and staffing friction | Moderate evidence confidence |
Conditions that changed the analysis
What mattered most in York, Pennsylvania
WellSpan York Hospital anchors substantial institutional service demand inside the city
This relationship affected 6 concepts and added 0.6 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022: 1,553,654,000 USD. [6] [8]
York labor-shed evidence supports moderate skilled-trade staffing pressure
This relationship affected 10 concepts and reduced 0.7 points on average among those exposed. Local evidence: Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations: 32.03 USD per hour. [10]
City planning evidence describes York housing stock as generally older, with the majority of the City’s older housing stock built before the 1950s
Older stock supports a larger addressable base for repair, inspection, restoration, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC work, but age alone does not establish that any specific property retains original systems, requires immediate replacement, or has karst-related structural damage. [7] [3] [19]
Evidence behind the city mechanisms
Older York housing stock supports repair and replacement demand1 modeled effect
Replacement and repair demandProperty replacement-cycle demand
WellSpan York Hospital anchors substantial institutional service demand inside the city1 modeled effect
Healthcare institutional service demandTarget-market demand
Household income, poverty, and housing-cost burden constrain discretionary consumer spending for sensitive formats1 modeled effect
Discretionary-spending pressureTarget-market demand
York labor-shed evidence supports moderate skilled-trade staffing pressure1 modeled effect
Skilled-trade labor competitionLabor and staffing friction
Historic York exterior-review requirements can require prototype adaptation and additional approvals1 modeled effect
Signage and prototype adaptation burdenRegulatory and operating 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 alignment71.4
City Wide
Initial investment: $229,729–$410,730
Increase +1.4 pts Target-market demandNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +1.37 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
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 | +1.4 |
| 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 included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.4 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#4
#2Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment71.0
Jan-Pro International
Initial investment: $130,000–$421,500
Increase +1.0 pts Target-market demandNo 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +1.0 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.99 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 | +1.0 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.99 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +1.0 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#5
#3Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
ActionCOACH
Initial investment: $71,668–$303,513
Increase +0.2 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 |
| +0.1 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.1 |
| 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 included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #2–#12
#4Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
FASTSIGNS
Initial investment: $231,226–$386,285
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.4 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.15 pts | |
Net uses full-precision effects; displayed factor and driver rows are rounded.
Franchise evidence
Source material assessed
Item 3 — Litigation
1 image
Item 6 — Other Fees
1 image
Item 7 — Estimated Initial Investment
2 images
Item 12 — Territory
1 image
Item 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 | +0.5 |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.15 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#9
#5Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.1
Rainbow International Restoration
Initial investment: $185,336–$351,900
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.5 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 |
| -0.5 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 pts |
| Target-market demand |
| +0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.10 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.10 |
| Published local-market alignment | 70.1 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Evidence confidence
- City Modifier Evidence
- Adequate
- Factor Research Coverage
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#8
#6Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment70.0
HomeSmiles
Initial investment: $148,110–$201,800
Increase +0.5 pts Target-market demandReduction -0.5 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Target-market demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.05 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 | +0.5 |
| Property replacement-cycle demand | Not applicable to this operating model |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.5 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.05 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand +0.5 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#10
#7Tier 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 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 |
| +0.3 pts |
| Labor and staffing friction |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | +0.04 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 | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 70.04 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Property replacement-cycle demand +0.3 pts
- Tested rank range
- #1–#11
#8Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.9
PuroClean
Initial investment: $54,575–$262,145
Increase +0.4 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.4 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 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 | +0.4 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -0.6 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#10
#9Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.8
Tiger Adjusters
Initial investment: $43,050–$159,500
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.2 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 |
| -0.2 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.24 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 | -0.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.76 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -0.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #7–#13
#10Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
ZOOM DRAIN
Initial investment: $266,250–$570,500
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.1 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 |
| -1.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.50 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 | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.50 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #4–#11
#11Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.5
Mr. Rooter
Initial investment: $152,900–$298,675
Increase +0.6 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.1 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 |
| -1.1 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.6 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.54 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 | -1.1 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.46 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.1 pts
- Tested rank range
- #5–#12
#12Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Workout Anytime
Initial investment: $1,060,850–$1,840,550
No material positive local adjustment identifiedReduction -0.6 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 |
| -0.6 pts |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Signage and prototype adaptation burden EvidenceConditional — applicability must be confirmed | Not scored |
| Net local movement | -0.60 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 | -0.6 |
| 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 included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.40 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Target-market demand -0.6 pts
- Tested rank range
- #3–#14
#13Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.4
Aire Serv
Initial investment: $113,308–$271,708
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 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 |
| -1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.64 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.36 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Adequate
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #6–#13
#14Tier 3 · Mixed modeled alignment69.3
Mister Sparky Electric
Increase +0.5 pts Property replacement-cycle demandReduction -1.2 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 |
| -1.2 pts |
| Property replacement-cycle demand |
| +0.5 pts |
| Net local movement | -0.71 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 | +0.5 |
| Competitive environment | Not included in the score |
| Labor and staffing friction | -1.2 |
| Transportation, routing, and parking | Not included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 69.29 |
| 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
- Limited
- Franchise-profile completeness
- Limited
- Source-evidence confidence
- Adequate
- Geographic applicability
- Limited
- Overall evidence confidence
- Moderate evidence confidence
- Largest absolute effect
- Labor and staffing friction -1.2 pts
- Tested rank range
- #9–#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 | +1.4 |
| 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 included in the score |
| 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 | Not included in the score |
| Regulatory and operating friction | Depends on the specific site, territory, or operating condition |
| Full-precision calculated score | 71.37 |
| Published local-market alignment | 71.4 |
Factor calculations use full precision. Contributions and published scores are displayed to one decimal place; ranking order uses the full-precision score.
Starting pointThe operating-model baseline shown in the first ledger row.
InteractionsAny interaction or gate is included in the relevant contribution or calibration row.
Confidence treatmentEvidence confidence is disclosed separately unless the model definition explicitly applies a calibration adjustment.
RoundingFull-precision contributions are summed before the final displayed score is rounded to one decimal place; whole-number results are shown without a trailing decimal.
Factor impact
Which local conditions changed scores or rankings?
We neutralized one factor at a time, recalculated every score, and then measured both absolute score movement and changes in rank order.
Observed model 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, 8 concepts changed position. Workout Anytime moved from #12 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.4 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank8
What we observed
- Median Household Income In 2024 Dollars, 2020 202448,420 USD per household
- Persons In Poverty21.1 percent
- Health Care And Social Assistance Receipts/revenue In 20221,553,654,000 USD
Concepts helped most
City WideFacility management
+1.4 pts
Jan-Pro InternationalCommercial cleaning
+1.0 pts
FASTSIGNSSigns and graphics
+0.5 pts
HomeSmilesProperty maintenance services
+0.5 pts
Rainbow International RestorationRestoration
+0.2 pts
Concepts challenged most
Workout AnytimeFitness
-0.6 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, 6 concepts changed position. Rainbow International Restoration moved from #5 to #8, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted7 of 14
Average among affected+0.5 pts
Average across all concepts+0.2 pts
Concepts changing rank6
What we observed
- City Planning Document States That The Majority Of The City’s Older Housing Stock Was Built Before The 1950smajority qualitative share
Concepts helped most
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
+0.6 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
+0.6 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
+0.5 pts
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
+0.5 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
+0.4 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 10 of 14 concepts. When we neutralized the factor and recalculated the table, 12 concepts changed position. Mr. Rooter moved from #11 to #3, the largest movement among concepts directly affected by this factor.
Concepts adjusted10 of 14
Average among affected-0.7 pts
Average across all concepts-0.5 pts
Concepts changing rank12
What we observed
- Installation, Maintenance, And Repair Occupations As Share Of Local Employment4.6 percent of employment
- Mean Hourly Wage For Construction And Extraction Occupations32.03 USD per hour
- York Hanover Msa Unemployment Rate In June 20263.8 percent
Concepts challenged most
Mister Sparky ElectricElectrical
-1.2 pts
Aire ServHVAC installation, repair, and maintenance
-1.2 pts
Mr. RooterPlumbing
-1.1 pts
ZOOM DRAINDrain and sewer service
-1.1 pts
PuroCleanRestoration
-0.6 pts
Measured but not differentiating in this concept set
- Competitive environmentNo material score adjustment
- Transportation, routing, and parkingNo 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 WideModerately sensitive · tested #1–#4
#2 Jan-Pro InternationalModerately sensitive · tested #2–#5
#3 ActionCOACHHighly sensitive · tested #2–#12
#4 FASTSIGNSHighly sensitive · tested #4–#9
#5 Rainbow International RestorationHighly sensitive · tested #3–#8
#6 HomeSmilesHighly sensitive · tested #5–#10
#7 Pillar To Post Home InspectorsHighly sensitive · tested #1–#11
#8 PuroCleanModerately sensitive · tested #7–#10
#9 Tiger AdjustersHighly sensitive · tested #7–#13
#10 ZOOM DRAINHighly sensitive · tested #4–#11
#11 Mr. RooterHighly sensitive · tested #5–#12
#12 Workout AnytimeHighly sensitive · tested #3–#14
#13 Aire ServHighly sensitive · tested #6–#13
#14 Mister Sparky ElectricHighly sensitive · tested #9–#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: [6] [7] [8] [3] [5]Property replacement-cycle demand: [7] [19] [3]Competitive environment: [18] [6] [5]Labor and staffing friction: [7] [10] [11] [9] [4]Transportation, routing, and parking: [6] [17] [4] [5]Real estate and site feasibility: [12] [7] [13] [16] [19] [3]Sales and customer acquisition: [18] [6] [20] [5]Referral ecosystem: [8] [6] [20] [9]Territory quality: [6] [12] [17] [5]Regulatory and operating friction: [13] [14] [15] [16] [4] [5]
View the chart data as a table
| Concept | Target-market demand | Property replacement-cycle demand | Labor and staffing friction |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 City Wide | +1.4 pts | — | — |
| #2 Jan-Pro International | +1.0 pts | — | — |
| #3 ActionCOACH | +0.2 pts | — | — |
| #4 FASTSIGNS | +0.5 pts | — | -0.4 pts |
| #5 Rainbow International Restoration | +0.2 pts | +0.4 pts | -0.5 pts |
| #6 HomeSmiles | +0.5 pts | — | -0.5 pts |
| #7 Pillar To Post Home Inspectors | — | +0.3 pts | -0.2 pts |
| #8 PuroClean | — | +0.4 pts | -0.6 pts |
| #9 Tiger Adjusters | — | — | -0.2 pts |
| #10 ZOOM DRAIN | — | +0.6 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #11 Mr. Rooter | — | +0.6 pts | -1.1 pts |
| #12 Workout Anytime | -0.6 pts | — | — |
| #13 Aire Serv | — | +0.5 pts | -1.2 pts |
| #14 Mister Sparky Electric | — | +0.5 pts | -1.2 pts |
Interpretation
How to interpret the result
City Wide, Jan-Pro International, ActionCOACH led because their operating requirements captured more of the local support from 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 ActionCOACH, FASTSIGNS, Rainbow International Restoration; their ranks move more widely when individual factors are neutralized.
Category comparisons
Best franchise categories we assessed in York, Pennsylvania
Category summaries are shown only when at least two concepts qualified. Two-concept comparisons are explicitly labeled as limited.
Limited two-concept comparison
70.0Best Restoration franchise opportunities we assessed in York, Pennsylvania
2 Restoration concepts qualified for comparison, with scores ranging from 69.9 to 70.1. Rainbow International Restoration ranked highest at 70.1. Property replacement-cycle demand added 0.4 points on average among the affected concepts. Labor and staffing friction reduced the exposed concepts by 0.5 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
- 69.9–70.1
- Category average
- 70.0
Rainbow International Restoration70.1
PuroClean69.9
Metric registry
The 30 local metrics behind this analysis
The registry shows each public metric’s raw value, period, geography, source, and its actual role in the compiled analysis.
View all local metrics
| Metric | Raw value | Period | Geography | Role in analysis | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025 | 45,342people | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025 | 1.2percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| Households, 2020-2024 | 17,893households | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024 | 48,420USD per household | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Persons in poverty | 21.1percent | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Health care and social assistance receipts/revenue in 2022 | 1,553,654,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [6] |
| Total retail sales in 2022 | 503,955,000USD | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| Mean travel time to work for workers age 16 and over | 23.1minutes | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| Population density in 2020 | 8,465.6people per square mile | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| Land area in 2020 | 5.29square miles | July 1, 2025 population estimate; 2020-2024 ACS-derived characteristics; 2022 economic measures | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [6] |
| WellSpan York Hospital staffed bed count stated by the institution | 593beds | Current facility profile accessed August 19, 2026 | WellSpan York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [8] |
| WellSpan York Hospital employment stated by the institution | 5,000employees minimum | Current facility profile accessed August 19, 2026 | WellSpan York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [8] |
| Physicians and other professionals on WellSpan York Hospital medical and dental staff | 700professionals minimum | Current facility profile accessed August 19, 2026 | WellSpan York Hospital, York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [8] |
| City planning document states that the majority of the City’s older housing stock was built before the 1950s | majorityqualitative share | Planning period 2025-2029; underlying housing and stakeholder data vary by cited year | York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Households reported as cost burdened in the City plan | 38.4percent of households | Planning period 2025-2029; underlying housing and stakeholder data vary by cited year | York, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [7] |
| City plan cites difficulty rehabilitating and repairing York County aging housing stock due to lack of skilled construction workers | yesboolean | Planning period 2025-2029; underlying housing and stakeholder data vary by cited year | York County, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [7] |
| Mean hourly wage across all occupations in York-Hanover MSA, May 2025 | 29.36USD per hour | May 2025 | York-Hanover MSA, Pennsylvania | Context only | [10] |
| Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations as share of local employment | 4.6percent of employment | May 2025 | York-Hanover MSA, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [10] |
| Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations | 32.03USD per hour | May 2025 | York-Hanover MSA, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [10] |
| York-Hanover MSA unemployment rate in June 2026 | 3.8percent | June 2026 | York-Hanover MSA, Pennsylvania | Used in scoring | [11] |
| York County industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026 | 3.19percent | Q2 2026 and first half 2026 | York County, Pennsylvania | Context only | [12] |
| York County newly leased industrial area during the first half of 2026 | 1,400,000square feet minimum | Q2 2026 and first half 2026 | York County, Pennsylvania | Context only | [12] |
| Q2 report states that less than half of newly signed leases were for spaces larger than 10,000 square feet | yesboolean | Q2 2026 and first half 2026 | York County, Pennsylvania | Context only | [12] |
| Airborne Contamination Identification Associates opened a renovated approximately 40,000 square foot warehouse at 300 N Sherman Street in York City in May 2026 | 40,000square feet approximate | Q2 2026 and first half 2026 | 300 N Sherman Street, York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [12] |
| Exterior changes to buildings in the Historic York district or designated landmarks require HARB review and City Council approval before a HARB permit is issued | yesboolean | Current HARB process as of July 2026 | Historic York / HARB district, City of York, Pennsylvania | Conditional relationship | [13] [14] |
| HARB meets on the second and fourth Thursday of each month; recommendations then proceed to City Council | 2scheduled meetings per month | Current HARB process as of July 2026 | Historic York / HARB district, City of York, Pennsylvania | Conditional relationship | [13] |
| Building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, curb and sidewalk, and building-code sign permits are each listed at 1.25 percent of valuation | 1.25percent of valuation per listed permit | Resolution #135 fees stated to remain effective until changed; current City permits page directs users to this fee-schedule document | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [16] [15] |
| Plan review and inspection fee deposit listed as 0.75 percent of valuation | 0.75percent of valuation | Resolution #135 fees stated to remain effective until changed; current City permits page directs users to this fee-schedule document | York, Pennsylvania | Context only | [16] [15] |
| PennDOT stated March 5, 2026 that the remaining Route 30/Roosevelt Avenue work, including a Roosevelt Avenue segment beginning at Marbrook Lane in the City of York, would complete the project in about one month | yescompletion expected about april 2026 | March-April 2026 expected completion | Roosevelt Avenue from Marbrook Lane in York city/Manchester Township through adjoining townships | Context only | [17] |
| Pennsylvania Geological Survey maintains a countywide inventory of karst features for York County and characterizes the inventory as incomplete | yesboolean | Inventory compiled since 1985; current service accessed August 19, 2026 | York County, Pennsylvania | Context only | [19] |
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 71.37 after target-market demand +1.4 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.
- 1Franchise-to-city operating-fit scoring modelInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 2Valid city JSON exampleInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 3Structural Inefficiencies and Asymmetric Franchise Opportunities in Tier-1 U.S. MarketsInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 4Municipal Forensic Audit: Structural Constraints and Deal-Killer AnalysisInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 5Franchise neighborhood research tableInternal or supplied research; not publicly accessible.
- 6QuickFacts: York city, Pennsylvania
Used for: Resident population estimate on July 1, 2025, Population change from April 2020 estimate base to July 2025, Households, 2020-2024, Median household income in 2024 dollars, 2020-2024, and Persons in poverty
- 7York 2025-2029 Consolidated Plan and FY 2025 Action Plan
Used for: City planning document states that the majority of the City’s older housing stock was built before the 1950s, Households reported as cost burdened in the City plan, and City plan cites difficulty rehabilitating and repairing York County aging housing stock due to lack of skilled construction workers
- 8WellSpan York Hospital
Used for: WellSpan York Hospital staffed bed count stated by the institution, WellSpan York Hospital employment stated by the institution, and Physicians and other professionals on WellSpan York Hospital medical and dental staff
- 9
- 10Occupational Employment and Wages in York-Hanover — May 2025
Used for: Mean hourly wage across all occupations in York-Hanover MSA, May 2025, Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations as share of local employment, and Mean hourly wage for construction and extraction occupations
- 11York-Hanover Metropolitan Statistical Area workforce information news release
Used for: York-Hanover MSA unemployment rate in June 2026
- 12MarketREVIEWS Q2 2026: Industrial — York County, PA
Used for: York County industrial vacancy rate in Q2 2026, York County newly leased industrial area during the first half of 2026, Q2 report states that less than half of newly signed leases were for spaces larger than 10,000 square feet, and Airborne Contamination Identification Associates opened a renovated approximately 40,000 square foot warehouse at 300 N Sherman Street in York City in May 2026
- 13Historical Architectural Review Board Applicant Information Packet
Used for: Exterior changes to buildings in the Historic York district or designated landmarks require HARB review and City Council approval before a HARB permit is issued and HARB meets on the second and fourth Thursday of each month; recommendations then proceed to City Council
- 14Historic York Preservation Ordinance / HARB rewrite
Used for: Exterior changes to buildings in the Historic York district or designated landmarks require HARB review and City Council approval before a HARB permit is issued
- 15Bureau of Permits and Inspections
Used for: Building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, curb and sidewalk, and building-code sign permits are each listed at 1.25 percent of valuation and Plan review and inspection fee deposit listed as 0.75 percent of valuation
- 16City of York Fee Schedule
Used for: Building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, curb and sidewalk, and building-code sign permits are each listed at 1.25 percent of valuation and Plan review and inspection fee deposit listed as 0.75 percent of valuation
- 17Road Work to Resume on Route 30 and Roosevelt Avenue in York County
Used for: PennDOT stated March 5, 2026 that the remaining Route 30/Roosevelt Avenue work, including a Roosevelt Avenue segment beginning at Marbrook Lane in the City of York, would complete the project in about one month
- 18
- 19Karst Features layer
Used for: Pennsylvania Geological Survey maintains a countywide inventory of karst features for York County and characterizes the inventory as incomplete
- 20
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.