Vendor A
Lean offer, limited assuranceUnchanged from balanced weighting
← Explore our approach
The right vendor starts with your priorities.
Change what matters, compare three fictional offers, and understand the reasoning behind the ranking.
FICTIONAL VENDORS · EXPLAINED WEIGHTING
Make the tradeoffs visible.
Vendor B has the highest score.
All criteria have equal influence. Ratings stay fixed so you can isolate the effect of changing priorities.
3.25 / 5
Vendor B
Strong support, balanced fitUnchanged from balanced weighting
Vendor C
Strong control evidence and fitUnchanged from balanced weighting
| Criterion | Effective share | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cost fit | 25.0% | 5 / 51.25 points | 3 / 50.75 points | 2 / 50.50 points |
| Support | 25.0% | 3 / 50.75 points | 5 / 51.25 points | 3 / 50.75 points |
| Security | 25.0% | 2 / 50.50 points | 4 / 51.00 points | 5 / 51.25 points |
| Business fit | 25.0% | 3 / 50.75 points | 4 / 51.00 points | 5 / 51.25 points |
Effective share = criterion weight ÷ total weight (100). Score = sum of rating × effective share. Calculations use full precision; displayed values are rounded. Equal scores share the lead.
Balanced baseline: Vendor A 3.25, Vendor B 4.00, Vendor C 3.75. Cost-led weighting favors A’s affordability; security-led weighting favors C’s stronger control evidence.
Why these ratings?
Original fictional review notes, not assessments of real companies. The same 1–5 rubric applies throughout: 1 = major gaps, 2 = material gaps, 3 = adequate, 4 = strong, 5 = very strong against the stated needs.
Vendor A
- Cost fit: 5 / 5
- Lowest modeled whole-life cost in this fictional comparison, including transition.
- Support: 3 / 5
- Business-hours coverage meets basic needs; after-hours escalation remains limited.
- Security: 2 / 5
- Control documentation is incomplete and recovery evidence needs further review.
- Business fit: 3 / 5
- Core workflows fit; two required integrations would need additional work.
Vendor B
- Cost fit: 3 / 5
- Mid-range modeled cost with understandable recurring and transition fees.
- Support: 5 / 5
- Named escalation ownership, broad coverage, and well-defined service commitments.
- Security: 4 / 5
- Most requested control and recovery evidence is available; one assurance gap remains.
- Business fit: 4 / 5
- Most required workflows and integrations fit, with a manageable training need.
Vendor C
- Cost fit: 2 / 5
- Highest modeled cost; transition and ongoing fees exceed the preferred budget.
- Support: 3 / 5
- Standard coverage is adequate; specialist response needs contractual clarification.
- Security: 5 / 5
- The fictional review includes complete, current control and recovery evidence.
- Business fit: 5 / 5
- All prioritized workflows and integrations fit, with a clear adoption plan.
A score supports judgment.
Confirm mandatory requirements before comparing scores. A high cost or support rating cannot compensate for an unmet security, legal, or business requirement. Validate vendor evidence, references, contract terms, and a pilot before making a real selection.
This demonstration does not assess real vendors or certify security. Weights stay in this page.
Discuss your vendor evaluation