Template
Vendor scorecard
Scored by <role>. Scale 0 to 10 per criterion; weight per criterion agreed before scoring. An unknown is left blank and excluded from the weighted result, never scored as zero.
| Criterion | Weight | Score | Evidence (document, demo, reference) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional fit against mandatory requirements | 25 | ||
| Integration with our systems of record | 20 | ||
| Security posture (reports seen, not promised) | 15 | ||
| Total cost over the contract term | 15 | ||
| Implementation plan and internal effort | 10 | ||
| Support model and service levels | 10 | ||
| Company stability and roadmap credibility | 5 |
Weighted result: sum(weight x score) / sum(weights of scored criteria).
Notes: <what surprised you, what remains open, what you would ask a reference customer>.
Compare on the same evidence
When comparing options, use only criteria scored for every option in the shared score. Report the included weight divided by the total weight as evidence coverage. A high score with low coverage is a partial result. The weights above are an editable starting point, not a benchmark.
Keep essential requirements separate
| Must-have acceptance test | Result | Evidence and date | Follow-up owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| <test> | Unresolved |
A failed or unresolved must-have remains a decision blocker even when the weighted score is high. Record accepted trade-offs explicitly.
For a two-option matrix with editable criteria, separate must-haves, shared evidence coverage and a CSV export, use the software evaluation scorecard. It uses Meets, Partly meets, Does not meet and Unresolved instead of this template's 0-to-10 scale.
Copy the source (Markdown, select and copy)
# Vendor scorecard: <vendor>, <date> Scored by <role>. Scale 0 to 10 per criterion; weight per criterion agreed before scoring. An unknown is left blank and excluded from the weighted result, never scored as zero. | Criterion | Weight | Score | Evidence (document, demo, reference) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Functional fit against mandatory requirements | 25 | | | | Integration with our systems of record | 20 | | | | Security posture (reports seen, not promised) | 15 | | | | Total cost over the contract term | 15 | | | | Implementation plan and internal effort | 10 | | | | Support model and service levels | 10 | | | | Company stability and roadmap credibility | 5 | | | Weighted result: sum(weight x score) / sum(weights of scored criteria). Notes: <what surprised you, what remains open, what you would ask a reference customer>. ## Compare on the same evidence When comparing options, use only criteria scored for every option in the shared score. Report the included weight divided by the total weight as evidence coverage. A high score with low coverage is a partial result. The weights above are an editable starting point, not a benchmark. ## Keep essential requirements separate | Must-have acceptance test | Result | Evidence and date | Follow-up owner | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | <test> | Unresolved | | | A failed or unresolved must-have remains a decision blocker even when the weighted score is high. Record accepted trade-offs explicitly. For a two-option matrix with editable criteria, separate must-haves, shared evidence coverage and a CSV export, use the [software evaluation scorecard](/tools/software-evaluation-scorecard). It uses Meets, Partly meets, Does not meet and Unresolved instead of this template's 0-to-10 scale.