AI Vendor Evaluation Scorecard
A comprehensive scoring framework for evaluating and comparing AI vendors across technical capabilities, business fit, cost, and risk factors. Use this template to standardize vendor selection decisions, document evaluation criteria, and present vendor recommendations to leadership with quantified justification.
How to Use This Template
- 1.**Step 1: Define Your Evaluation Criteria and Weights** — Before scoring any vendors, customize the six evaluation categories and their weights to match your organization's priorities. If security is critical, increase the Security & Compliance weight from 15% to 25%. If you're evaluating vendors for a non-critical use case, reduce Vendor Stability weight. Edit the specific features and requirements in each section to reflect what matters most for your use case. This ensures you're comparing vendors on factors that actually impact your business, not generic criteria.
- 2.**Step 2: Research and Gather Vendor Information** — For each vendor you're evaluating, collect detailed information across all six categories. Request security documentation, integration specifications, and pricing details directly from vendors. Schedule product demos and technical deep-dives. Identify and contact 2-3 customer references for each vendor, ideally companies similar in size and industry to yours. Document all findings in the relevant table rows so you have consistent data for comparison.
- 3.**Step 3: Score Each Vendor Objectively** — Using the 1-10 scale for each category, score every vendor consistently. A score of 7-8 means "good, meets most requirements with minor gaps." A score of 9-10 means "excellent, exceeds requirements." A score of 5-6 means "adequate but has notable limitations." Document the reasoning for each score in the "Scoring Rationale" section so leadership understands your logic. If two evaluators score the same vendor differently, discuss and align on a final score.
- 4.**Step 4: Calculate Weighted Scores and Identify the Winner** — Multiply each vendor's category score by the weight percentage, then sum all weighted scores to get the total out of 100. The vendor with the highest total score is your recommendation. However, review the Risk Assessment section—if the highest-scoring vendor has critical risks that outweigh its advantages, reconsider. Ensure your recommendation is defensible to leadership based on both quantitative scores and qualitative factors.
- 5.**Step 5: Complete the Risk Assessment and Implementation Timeline** — For your recommended vendor, identify 4-5 realistic risks (vendor acquisition, integration delays, user adoption, etc.) and document mitigation strategies for each. Then create a detailed implementation timeline breaking the project into 5 phases with specific activities, durations, and owners. This demonstrates you've thought through execution, not just vendor selection.
- 6.**Step 6: Present to Leadership with Clear Rationale** — Use the Executive Summary section to lead with your recommendation, overall score, and 3-year cost. Walk leadership through the weighted scoring methodology so they understand why this vendor won. Highlight the ROI analysis and payback period. Be prepared to explain trade-offs—for example, "Vendor B is $50K cheaper but requires 4 more weeks of integration work." Have customer references and security certifications ready to back up claims. This template becomes your presentation deck when you fill it out completely.
Template
# AI Vendor Evaluation Scorecard
**Evaluation Date:** [DATE]
**Prepared By:** [YOUR NAME/TEAM]
**Use Case:** [E.G., CONTENT GENERATION, CUSTOMER SERVICE AUTOMATION, PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS]
**Decision Deadline:** [DATE]
---
## Executive Summary
**Recommended Vendor:** [VENDOR NAME]
**Overall Score:** [SCORE]/100
**Key Differentiators:** [2-3 BULLET POINTS ON WHY THIS VENDOR WINS]
**Implementation Timeline:** [WEEKS/MONTHS]
**Total 3-Year Cost:** [AMOUNT]
---
## Evaluation Criteria & Scoring
Each category is scored 1-10 and weighted by importance to your organization. Total possible score is 100.
| Evaluation Category | Weight | Vendor A Score | Vendor B Score | Vendor C Score | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **Product Capabilities** | 25% | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [NOTES] |
| **Integration & Technical Fit** | 20% | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [NOTES] |
| **Pricing & ROI** | 20% | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [NOTES] |
| **Security & Compliance** | 15% | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [NOTES] |
| **Vendor Stability & Support** | 10% | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [NOTES] |
| **Customer Success & References** | 10% | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [SCORE] | [NOTES] |
| **WEIGHTED TOTAL SCORE** | **100%** | **[TOTAL]** | **[TOTAL]** | **[TOTAL]** | |
---
## Detailed Evaluation Breakdown
### 1. Product Capabilities (25% Weight)
**What We're Evaluating:** Does the vendor's AI solution deliver the specific features and performance we need?
| Capability | Required? | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [FEATURE NAME] | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| [FEATURE NAME] | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| [FEATURE NAME] | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| [FEATURE NAME] | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| [FEATURE NAME] | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
**Scoring Rationale:**
- **Vendor A (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF STRENGTHS AND GAPS]
- **Vendor B (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF STRENGTHS AND GAPS]
- **Vendor C (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF STRENGTHS AND GAPS]
---
### 2. Integration & Technical Fit (20% Weight)
**What We're Evaluating:** Can this solution integrate with our existing tech stack and infrastructure?
| Integration Point | Priority | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Effort Required |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [SYSTEM/PLATFORM] | High/Med/Low | Native/API/Custom | Native/API/Custom | Native/API/Custom | [WEEKS] |
| [SYSTEM/PLATFORM] | High/Med/Low | Native/API/Custom | Native/API/Custom | Native/API/Custom | [WEEKS] |
| [SYSTEM/PLATFORM] | High/Med/Low | Native/API/Custom | Native/API/Custom | Native/API/Custom | [WEEKS] |
| Data Migration | High/Med/Low | [APPROACH] | [APPROACH] | [APPROACH] | [WEEKS] |
| API Documentation | High/Med/Low | Excellent/Good/Fair | Excellent/Good/Fair | Excellent/Good/Fair | [NOTES] |
**Scoring Rationale:**
- **Vendor A (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF INTEGRATION COMPLEXITY AND TIMELINE]
- **Vendor B (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF INTEGRATION COMPLEXITY AND TIMELINE]
- **Vendor C (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF INTEGRATION COMPLEXITY AND TIMELINE]
---
### 3. Pricing & ROI (20% Weight)
**What We're Evaluating:** Is the total cost of ownership reasonable, and what's the payback period?
| Cost Component | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Year 1 Implementation** | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| Setup & Integration | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| Training & Change Management | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| **Year 1 Licensing/SaaS** | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| **Year 2 Licensing/SaaS** | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| **Year 3 Licensing/SaaS** | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| **3-Year Total Cost** | **$[AMOUNT]** | **$[AMOUNT]** | **$[AMOUNT]** |
| **Cost Per [UNIT: USER/TRANSACTION/SEAT]** | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
**Projected ROI Analysis:**
| Metric | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Annual Benefit | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| Payback Period | [MONTHS] | [MONTHS] | [MONTHS] |
| 3-Year Net Benefit | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] | $[AMOUNT] |
| ROI % (Year 1) | [%] | [%] | [%] |
**Scoring Rationale:**
- **Vendor A (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF PRICING COMPETITIVENESS AND ROI]
- **Vendor B (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF PRICING COMPETITIVENESS AND ROI]
- **Vendor C (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF PRICING COMPETITIVENESS AND ROI]
---
### 4. Security & Compliance (15% Weight)
**What We're Evaluating:** Does the vendor meet our security standards and regulatory requirements?
| Requirement | Required? | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 Type II Certification | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| ISO 27001 | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| GDPR Compliance | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| [REGULATION: HIPAA/CCPA/OTHER] | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| Data Encryption (In Transit & At Rest) | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| Data Residency Options | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| Regular Security Audits | Yes/No | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | ✓/✗ | [DETAILS] |
| Incident Response SLA | Yes/No | [TIME] | [TIME] | [TIME] | [DETAILS] |
**Scoring Rationale:**
- **Vendor A (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF SECURITY POSTURE AND ANY GAPS]
- **Vendor B (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF SECURITY POSTURE AND ANY GAPS]
- **Vendor C (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF SECURITY POSTURE AND ANY GAPS]
---
### 5. Vendor Stability & Support (10% Weight)
**What We're Evaluating:** Will this vendor be around in 3-5 years, and will they support us effectively?
| Factor | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company Funding/Profitability | [STATUS] | [STATUS] | [STATUS] |
| Years in Business | [YEARS] | [YEARS] | [YEARS] |
| Market Position | [LEADER/CHALLENGER/EMERGING] | [LEADER/CHALLENGER/EMERGING] | [LEADER/CHALLENGER/EMERGING] |
| Support Availability | [24/7, BUSINESS HOURS, LIMITED] | [24/7, BUSINESS HOURS, LIMITED] | [24/7, BUSINESS HOURS, LIMITED] |
| Support Tiers Offered | [TIERS] | [TIERS] | [TIERS] |
| Average Response Time (Critical Issues) | [TIME] | [TIME] | [TIME] |
| Dedicated Account Manager | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No |
| Product Roadmap Transparency | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] | [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] |
**Scoring Rationale:**
- **Vendor A (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF VENDOR STABILITY AND SUPPORT QUALITY]
- **Vendor B (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF VENDOR STABILITY AND SUPPORT QUALITY]
- **Vendor C (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF VENDOR STABILITY AND SUPPORT QUALITY]
---
### 6. Customer Success & References (10% Weight)
**What We're Evaluating:** What do existing customers say, and how successful are implementations?
| Reference | Company Size | Industry | Implementation Time | Satisfaction | Key Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [CUSTOMER NAME] | [SIZE] | [INDUSTRY] | [WEEKS/MONTHS] | [RATING/10] | [QUOTE OR SUMMARY] |
| [CUSTOMER NAME] | [SIZE] | [INDUSTRY] | [WEEKS/MONTHS] | [RATING/10] | [QUOTE OR SUMMARY] |
| [CUSTOMER NAME] | [SIZE] | [INDUSTRY] | [WEEKS/MONTHS] | [RATING/10] | [QUOTE OR SUMMARY] |
**Customer Review Scores:**
| Platform | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|
| G2 Rating | [RATING]/5 | [RATING]/5 | [RATING]/5 |
| Capterra Rating | [RATING]/5 | [RATING]/5 | [RATING]/5 |
| Gartner Magic Quadrant | [POSITION] | [POSITION] | [POSITION] |
**Scoring Rationale:**
- **Vendor A (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND REFERENCE QUALITY]
- **Vendor B (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND REFERENCE QUALITY]
- **Vendor C (Score: [X]/10):** [EXPLANATION OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION AND REFERENCE QUALITY]
---
## Risk Assessment
| Risk Factor | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| [RISK: E.G., VENDOR ACQUISITION/PIVOT] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [APPROACH] |
| [RISK: E.G., INTEGRATION DELAYS] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [APPROACH] |
| [RISK: E.G., DATA QUALITY ISSUES] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [APPROACH] |
| [RISK: E.G., USER ADOPTION] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [APPROACH] |
| [RISK: E.G., COST OVERRUNS] | High/Med/Low | High/Med/Low | [APPROACH] |
---
## Implementation Timeline (Recommended Vendor)
| Phase | Duration | Key Activities | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| **Phase 1: Setup & Configuration** | [WEEKS] | [ACTIVITIES] | [OWNER] |
| **Phase 2: Integration & Data Migration** | [WEEKS] | [ACTIVITIES] | [OWNER] |
| **Phase 3: Testing & QA** | [WEEKS] | [ACTIVITIES] | [OWNER] |
| **Phase 4: Training & Rollout** | [WEEKS] | [ACTIVITIES] | [OWNER] |
| **Phase 5: Optimization & Support** | [WEEKS] | [ACTIVITIES] | [OWNER] |
| **Total Time to Value** | **[WEEKS/MONTHS]** | | |
---
## Recommendation & Next Steps
**Selected Vendor:** [VENDOR NAME]
**Rationale:** [2-3 SENTENCES EXPLAINING WHY THIS VENDOR SCORED HIGHEST AND BEST FITS YOUR NEEDS]
**Key Success Factors:**
- [FACTOR 1]
- [FACTOR 2]
- [FACTOR 3]
**Next Steps:**
1. [ACTION ITEM] — Owner: [NAME], Due: [DATE]
2. [ACTION ITEM] — Owner: [NAME], Due: [DATE]
3. [ACTION ITEM] — Owner: [NAME], Due: [DATE]
4. [ACTION ITEM] — Owner: [NAME], Due: [DATE]
**Budget Approval Requested:** $[TOTAL 3-YEAR COST]
**Expected ROI:** [ROI %] in Year 1; [NET BENEFIT] over 3 years
Get the Full AI Marketing Learning Path
Courses, workshops, frameworks, daily intelligence, and 6 proprietary tools — built for marketing leaders adopting AI.
Trusted by 10,000+ Directors and CMOs.
Related Templates
AI Tool Evaluation Rubric Template
A structured scoring framework for evaluating AI marketing tools against your organization's requirements. Use this to compare vendors objectively, justify tool investments to leadership, and document decision criteria before purchase. Produces a defensible evaluation matrix with weighted scores and recommendations.
AI Vendor Comparison Matrix
A structured evaluation framework for CMOs and marketing leaders to compare AI vendors across strategic fit, reliability, compliance, cost, and integration criteria. Use this template to build a defensible vendor selection scorecard that you can present to finance and leadership, ensuring your AI investment aligns with marketing objectives and organizational risk tolerance.
Related Reading
Get the Full AI Marketing Learning Path
Courses, workshops, frameworks, daily intelligence, and 6 proprietary tools — built for marketing leaders adopting AI.
Trusted by 10,000+ Directors and CMOs.