Buyer Toolkit
10-criteria vendor scoring rubric.
The same weighted scoring framework we use in every review. Apply it to RFP responses, vendor demos, or POC outcomes for consistent decision-making across your evaluation team.
Features
20% weight- 5/5
- Exceeds every must-have + most preferred + delivers differentiated capabilities
- 4/5
- Meets every must-have + meets most preferred
- 3/5
- Meets every must-have + meets some preferred
- 2/5
- Meets some must-haves + gaps require workarounds
- 1/5
- Multiple must-have gaps + no plan to address
Integrations
15% weight- 5/5
- Native bidirectional integrations across all source systems; mature SDK + community
- 4/5
- Native integrations for 80%+ source systems; remaining via iPaaS without workaround
- 3/5
- Native for primary source systems; gaps fillable with custom integration work
- 2/5
- Limited native integration; significant integration build required
- 1/5
- Heavy integration build required; risk of fragility + maintenance burden
User experience
15% weight- 5/5
- End users + admins both find UX intuitive; low training needs; modern + responsive
- 4/5
- End users find UX acceptable; admin requires training but ergonomic
- 3/5
- UX is functional but requires structured training for both populations
- 2/5
- UX shows age; significant training investment required; mobile capabilities weak
- 1/5
- UX is a meaningful adoption risk; users will resist or work around
Security + compliance
15% weight- 5/5
- Exceeds all required certifications + BAA + custom security review supported
- 4/5
- Meets all required certifications + BAA + standard security review supported
- 3/5
- Meets most certifications; some required certifications in roadmap
- 2/5
- Missing one or more required certifications; remediation timeline unclear
- 1/5
- Security posture does not meet regulatory requirements
Pricing transparency + total cost
10% weight- 5/5
- Transparent published pricing + TCO is competitive + contract terms favorable
- 4/5
- Pricing disclosed in proposal + TCO within target + standard terms
- 3/5
- Pricing requires conversation but proposal is clear + TCO acceptable
- 2/5
- Pricing opaque + TCO exceeds target + contract terms require negotiation
- 1/5
- Pricing unclear + TCO meaningfully above target + unfavorable contract terms
Support quality
10% weight- 5/5
- Named CSM included + 24×7 support + SLA-backed response times + reference customer testimonials
- 4/5
- Standard support tier acceptable + customer success function active
- 3/5
- Support meets SLA but customer success engagement is limited
- 2/5
- Support is slow or quality is inconsistent in references
- 1/5
- Support quality is a flagged risk in customer references
Reliability
5% weight- 5/5
- 99.99%+ documented uptime + SOC 2 audit confirms incident response maturity
- 4/5
- 99.9%+ uptime + status page transparent + incident comm strong
- 3/5
- 99.5%+ uptime + status reporting acceptable
- 2/5
- Uptime below 99.5% or incident communication is opaque
- 1/5
- Reliability is a flagged risk in customer references
Documentation
5% weight- 5/5
- Comprehensive admin + developer + end-user docs; API reference + integration cookbook
- 4/5
- Good admin + developer docs; some end-user gaps
- 3/5
- Docs cover happy path; edge cases require support tickets
- 2/5
- Docs are thin or outdated; significant reliance on vendor support
- 1/5
- Documentation is meaningfully inadequate for the deployment scope
Roadmap visibility
3% weight- 5/5
- Public 12-24 month roadmap + customer advisory board + customer-influenced prioritization
- 4/5
- 12-month roadmap disclosed + standard customer advisory engagement
- 3/5
- Roadmap disclosed in customer meetings; limited customer influence
- 2/5
- Roadmap visibility is opaque; vendor controls direction unilaterally
- 1/5
- Roadmap is uncertain; recent product direction has been inconsistent
Community + ecosystem
2% weight- 5/5
- Active user forums + partner network + third-party tooling + conferences
- 4/5
- Active user community + some partner network
- 3/5
- User community exists; partner network limited
- 2/5
- Limited community presence; few third-party tools or partners
- 1/5
- No meaningful community presence
How to apply this rubric
- Score each vendor on each of the 10 criteria using the 1-5 descriptor. Assign one descriptor per criterion — don't average within a criterion.
- Multiply each score by the criterion weight (the percentages above sum to 100%) — produces a weighted score per vendor.
- Sum the weighted scores. Final score is on the 0-5 scale (a perfect vendor scores 5; the floor is 1).
- Score independently across your evaluation team — then reconcile differences. Disagreements surface either real ambiguity in the vendor's capability or differing interpretations of the descriptor — both actionable.
- Document the descriptor selected for each criterion + the evidence behind that choice. This is the artifact you give procurement + executive stakeholders to defend the selection.