codexkit-vendor-comparison-matrix

name	codexkit-vendor-comparison-matrix
description	Build structured vendor/tool evaluation matrices with weighted scoring, TCO analysis, and recommendation memos. Covers criteria definition, deal-breaker identification, and negotiation points. Use when selecting SaaS tools, evaluating technology vendors, or making build-vs-buy decisions.
version	1.0.0
category	data

Vendor Comparison Matrix

When to Use

• When evaluating 2+ vendors or tools for a purchase decision
• When building a business case for tool selection
• When leadership requires a structured evaluation for procurement
• When comparing build-vs-buy options

Procedure

Step 1 — Requirements Gathering

Categorize requirements:

Category	Requirement	Priority (Must/Should/Nice)
Functional	[What it must do]	Must
Integration	[What it connects to]	Should
Security	[Compliance needs]	Must
Performance	[Speed, scale]	Should
Support	[SLA, response time]	Nice

Identify deal-breakers — any Must requirement not met eliminates the vendor.

Step 2 — Weight Criteria

Assign weights that sum to 100:

Category	Weight	Justification
Functionality	30	Core use case
Integration	20	Must connect to existing stack
Security & Compliance	20	Regulated industry
Pricing / TCO	15	Budget constrained
Vendor viability	10	Long-term relationship
UX / Adoption	5	Ease of rollout

Step 3 — Score Vendors

Score each vendor 1–5 per criterion:

Criterion (Weight)	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
Feature set (30)	4 → 120	5 → 150	3 → 90
Integration (20)	5 → 100	3 → 60	4 → 80
Security (20)	4 → 80	4 → 80	5 → 100
Pricing (15)	3 → 45	2 → 30	5 → 75
Viability (10)	5 → 50	4 → 40	2 → 20
UX (5)	4 → 20	5 → 25	3 → 15
Weighted Total	415	385	380

Step 4 — TCO Analysis

Calculate Total Cost of Ownership over 3 years:

Cost Component	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
License / subscription	$X	$Y	$Z
Implementation / migration	...	...	...
Training & change management	...	...	...
Ongoing support / maintenance	...	...	...
Integration development	...	...	...
Opportunity cost of downtime	...	...	...
3-Year TCO	$XX	$YY	$ZZ

Step 5 — Risk Assessment

Vendor	Risk	Likelihood	Impact	Mitigation
A	Vendor acquisition	Low	High	Contractual exit clause
B	Poor integration	Medium	Medium	POC before commit

Step 6 — Recommendation Memo

Write a concise memo:

1. Recommendation: Vendor A
2. Rationale: Highest weighted score, best integration, acceptable TCO
3. Trade-offs accepted: Higher price than C, less feature-rich than B
4. Next steps: Negotiate contract, run POC, plan migration

Inputs

Input	Required	Format
Vendors to evaluate	Yes	List of options
Requirements	Yes	Functional and non-functional
Budget	Recommended	Annual or 3-year
Evaluation team	Recommended	Who scores and decides

Output

## Vendor Evaluation — [Category]

### Recommendation: Vendor A (Score: 415/500)

### Weighted Comparison
[Scoring matrix table]

### TCO (3-Year)
[Cost breakdown table]

### Risk Assessment
[Risk table per vendor]

### Negotiation Points
- Request 15% volume discount based on 3-year commitment
- Include SLA with penalties for >99.9% uptime
- Require data portability clause

Definition of Done

• Requirements categorized with priorities
• Weights assigned and justified
• All vendors scored consistently
• TCO calculated over 3+ years
• Risks identified with mitigations
• Clear recommendation with rationale

Quality Criteria

• Data sources and assumptions are explicitly stated
• Calculations are reproducible from provided inputs
• Visualizations or tables have clear labels, units, and time ranges
• Caveats and confidence levels are documented for estimates

Verification (4C)

Check	Question
Correctness	Are formulas, aggregations, and statistical methods applied correctly?
Completeness	Does the analysis cover all requested metrics and time ranges?
Context-fit	Are the chosen metrics relevant to the business question being answered?
Consequence	If this data were used for a decision today, what blind spots remain?

Edge Cases

• Missing or incomplete data — Document gaps and their potential impact on conclusions. Provide ranges instead of point estimates.
• Outliers skewing results — Report with and without outliers. Document the decision to include or exclude.
• Changing data definitions mid-period — Split analysis at the change boundary and note the schema difference.

Changelog

• v1.0.0 — Initial release