Templates · Operations & projects
Vendor evaluation template
Compare vendors or tools against weighted requirements, security review and pricing, and record the decision
Start with this template →Sign in
Opens on reph with the template ready to start. No account needed; sign in to keep your document.
Filled example
The template filled in for a made-up company, so you can see what good looks like.
Vendor evaluation: customer support platform
Author: Lena Fischer · Date: 2026-08-18
Problem
Northwind's support team (14 agents) runs on a shared inbox that cannot route by product, measure response times or show a customer's history. First response time has grown from 4 to 11 hours this year. Doing nothing means hiring two more agents to keep up.
Requirements
| # |
Requirement |
Must have / Nice to have |
Weight (1 to 5) |
| 1 |
SSO with our identity provider |
Must have |
n/a |
| 2 |
Routing rules by product and tier |
Nice to have |
5 |
| 3 |
CRM integration showing account tier |
Nice to have |
4 |
| 4 |
Response time reporting |
Nice to have |
4 |
| 5 |
Help center with search |
Nice to have |
2 |
Vendors considered
| Vendor |
Why on the list |
Trial done? |
| Helpwise |
Market leader, used by two peers |
Yes |
| Tidewater Desk |
Cheaper, strong routing |
Yes |
| Fernhill Support |
Already used by sales for chat |
No |
Weighted scoring
| Requirement (weight) |
Helpwise |
Tidewater Desk |
Fernhill Support |
| Routing (5) |
4 (20) |
5 (25) |
2 (10) |
| CRM integration (4) |
5 (20) |
3 (12) |
4 (16) |
| Reporting (4) |
4 (16) |
4 (16) |
2 (8) |
| Help center (2) |
5 (10) |
2 (4) |
3 (6) |
| Weighted total |
66 |
57 |
40 |
Scoring notes: Tidewater's routing scored 5 because it routes by CRM tier with no scripting. Fernhill's routing scored 2: rules only match keywords, and our trial found 30% misroutes.
Security review
| Check |
Helpwise |
Tidewater Desk |
Fernhill Support |
| SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 |
SOC 2 (report linked) |
SOC 2 (report linked) |
ISO 27001 |
| SSO and SCIM |
Both |
SSO only |
Both |
| Data residency |
EU option |
US only |
EU option |
| Subprocessors reviewed |
Yes |
Yes |
Not yet |
| DPA signed or offered |
Offered |
Offered |
Signed |
Tidewater's US-only hosting fails our EU customer commitment, so it cannot be chosen despite the routing score.
Pricing
|
Helpwise |
Tidewater Desk |
Fernhill Support |
| Year 1 cost |
$16,800 |
$10,100 |
$12,600 |
| 3-year cost |
$52,900 |
$31,800 |
$39,700 |
| Contract term and notice |
Annual, 60 days |
Monthly |
Annual, 30 days |
Recommendation
Helpwise. It has the highest score, passes security with EU hosting, and costs less over three years than the two agents we would otherwise hire. We give up Tidewater's better routing and $21,000 of savings, which its US-only hosting rules out anyway.
Review
Review by: 2026-08-29
| Reviewer |
Role |
Status |
| Sam Ortiz |
Budget owner |
Approved |
| Priya Nair |
Security |
Approved |
| Kofi Mensah |
Day-to-day user |
Approved |
Decision record
| Decision |
Date |
Decided by |
Notes |
| Buy Helpwise, annual plan, 14 seats |
2026-08-28 |
Sam Ortiz |
Negotiate 10% off for a two-year term before signing |
The template
Show the blank template
Vendor evaluation
Author: [your name] · Date: [date]
Problem
What we need the vendor to do, and what happens if we do nothing. One paragraph.
Requirements
Must-haves fail a vendor outright. Nice-to-haves feed the weighted score below.
| # |
Requirement |
Must have / Nice to have |
Weight (1 to 5) |
| 1 |
|
Must have |
|
| 2 |
|
Nice to have |
|
| 3 |
|
Nice to have |
|
Vendors considered
| Vendor |
Why on the list |
Trial done? |
|
|
Yes / No |
|
|
Yes / No |
Weighted scoring
Score each requirement 1 to 5, multiply by its weight, and sum. Explain any score of 1 or 5 in the notes.
| Requirement (weight) |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
|
|
|
|
| Weighted total |
|
|
|
Scoring notes:
Security review
Fill before sign-off. Link the evidence, not just a yes.
| Check |
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 |
|
|
|
| SSO and SCIM |
|
|
|
| Data residency |
|
|
|
| Subprocessors reviewed |
|
|
|
| DPA signed or offered |
|
|
|
Pricing
Total cost over the contract term, including setup, seats at expected growth and the exit cost.
|
Vendor A |
Vendor B |
Vendor C |
| Year 1 cost |
|
|
|
| 3-year cost |
|
|
|
| Contract term and notice |
|
|
|
Recommendation
Which vendor, why, and what we give up by not picking the runner-up.
Review
Who must sign off, and by when. Reviewers mark their status; the approver fills in the decision record.
Review by: [date]
| Reviewer |
Role |
Status |
|
Budget owner |
Pending |
|
Security |
Pending |
|
Day-to-day user |
Pending |
Decision record
| Decision |
Date |
Decided by |
Notes |
|
|
|
|
Questions
- How many vendors should I compare?
- Two to four serious options; more turns the review into a catalogue
- Who sets the weights?
- Agree them with the approver before scoring, so the weights cannot be bent to fit a favourite
- Is security review optional for small tools?
- No; anything that touches customer data or SSO needs the security section filled before sign-off
Fill it with your agent
Connect Claude to reph over MCP, then paste this. The draft arrives as suggestions you accept or reject section by section. How to connect Claude.
Find my reph doc "Vendor evaluation" with search_docs, then read it with read_doc. Draft requirements from the request I link, then score each vendor from its docs, pricing, trial notes and security questionnaire, one line each, marking unsupported ones as guesses. Leave the recommendation and decision record empty. File it with suggest_edit, one replace_section op per section (heading line kept) so each can be accepted alone. Ask each open question (missing security evidence, unconfirmed pricing) with add_comment quoting that section's heading line, then call request_review with a one-line summary.
Related templates
All-hands agenda
Run of show for a company all-hands: timed segments with presenters, Q&A collection, and follow-ups owed afterwards
ExecutiveFounderOperationsCommunicationsManagerOffsite agenda
Team or leadership offsite plan: goals, pre-reads, day-by-day schedule, sessions with owners, decisions to make, logistics and outcomes
ExecutiveFounderManagerEngineering managerOperationsProject kickoff
Align a new project on goals, scope, roles and cadence
ManagerProduct managerOperationsRACI matrix
Who is Responsible, Accountable, Consulted and Informed
ManagerOperationsProduct managerRetrospective
What went well, what didn't, and what we'll change
ManagerOperationsEngineerProduct managerRisk register
Track risks with likelihood, impact, owner and mitigation
ManagerOperationsProduct managerStart with this template →Sign in