Templates

Software development vendor evaluation scorecard

Compare software development partners on the things that predict delivery: the engineers you actually get, how they work with your team, and how they handle risk.

By the Ryz Labs team · Updated October 2026

A software development vendor evaluation scorecard compares partners on weighted criteria with written anchors for each score, so the decision rests on evidence rather than the best sales pitch. The criteria that predict delivery are the seniority of the engineers you will actually get, how they vet people, how they work with your team, their relevant experience and how clearly they price. Add pass/fail gates for security and code ownership first, then score only the vendors that pass.

Vendor evaluation scorecard template

1. Pass/fail gates (check before scoring)

Gate	Pass condition	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C
Code and IP ownership	You own all code and IP produced, stated plainly	[Pass/Fail]	[Pass/Fail]	[Pass/Fail]
Access control	Engineers work in your accounts; you can revoke access at any time	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Confidentiality	Vendor signs your NDA before sharing profiles or starting work	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Security standards	Engineers have worked within the standards you need (for example SOC 2 controls, HIPAA, PCI DSS)	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Working hours	Team works hours that overlap with yours enough for same-day code review	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]

2. Weighted criteria with anchors

Criterion	Weight	1 (weak)	3 (acceptable)	5 (strong)
Seniority of proposed engineers	20%	Profiles are junior or not shown	Mid-level and senior mix, profiles shared	Senior engineers with comparable systems shipped; you interviewed them
Vetting process	15%	"We check resumes"	Technical interviews with a defined bar	Multi-stage technical vetting with a stated pass rate and evidence
Relevant experience	15%	Generic portfolio	Similar stack or industry	Similar system, scale and constraints, with reachable references
Collaboration model	15%	Separate team, weekly status email	Joins some rituals	Works in your repos, standups and reviews, reporting to your leads
Technical approach	10%	Generic plan	Plan fits your scope	Named risks in your system and how they would reduce them
Delivery visibility	10%	Status reports only	Sprint demos	Demos plus delivery metrics you can see in your own tools
Replacement and continuity	5%	No process	Replacement on request	Fast replacement with handover, documented knowledge
Cost transparency	10%	Single blended number, unclear what changes it	Cost per role	Cost per role and seniority, team total, clear drivers of change

3. Scoring sheet

Criterion	Weight	Vendor A	Vendor B	Vendor C	Evidence
Seniority of proposed engineers	0.20	[1-5]	[1-5]	[1-5]	[ ]
Vetting process	0.15	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Relevant experience	0.15	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Collaboration model	0.15	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Technical approach	0.10	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Delivery visibility	0.10	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Replacement and continuity	0.05	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Cost transparency	0.10	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]
Weighted total	1.00	[ ]	[ ]	[ ]	Within 0.3 points: decide on interviews with proposed engineers

Use this template

How to use this vendor scorecard

Name one owner for the evaluation. That person keeps the template, collects scores and runs the calibration.
Agree on the weights with the buying group before you meet any vendor. Adjust them to your project: a regulated build may weight security and experience higher.
Run every vendor through the gates. Drop any vendor that fails one; do not score them.
Calibrate on one vendor together: everyone scores it independently, then discuss differences until the anchors mean the same thing to everyone.
Score the remaining vendors independently and write the evidence for each score.
Interview the engineers each shortlisted vendor proposed, then update the seniority score from what you saw.
Compare weighted totals. If two vendors are within 0.3 points, decide on the engineer interviews and references, not the total.

Example: a scored row with evidence

Criterion	Vendor A	Vendor B	Evidence
Seniority of proposed engineers	2	5	A shared role descriptions only, and the one engineer we met had two years of experience. B shared three profiles; we interviewed two senior engineers who had built payment reconciliation systems at similar volume.

Common vendor evaluation mistakes

Evaluating the sales team. The people in the pitch are rarely the people who write your code. Score the engineers you will get.
Setting weights after the pitches. Weights chosen after seeing vendors tend to favor the one the group already likes.
Treating every criterion as scoreable. Code ownership and access control are gates, not points. A vendor that fails them should not be in the comparison.
Comparing hourly rates without seniority. A lower rate for junior engineers is not cheaper if the work needs senior ones.
Skipping references. Ask references how the vendor handled a problem, not whether they were happy.

Evaluating Ryz? Here is what we will show you

Ryz staffs senior engineers and AI pod teams on your team, reporting to your leads, on US business hours including New York hours. We share profiles of the actual engineers before you decide, and only the top 1% of the tens of thousands of engineers we interview make it through our vetting process. You own all code and IP, we sign your NDA before sharing profiles, and engineers work in accounts you control. Typical cost is $7,000 to $15,000 per engineer per month, priced per role and seniority. See our case studies or talk to us to scope your team.

FAQ

What criteria should I use to evaluate a software development vendor?

Start with pass/fail gates for code and IP ownership, access control, confidentiality, security standards and working hours. Then score the seniority of the proposed engineers, the vetting process, relevant experience, the collaboration model, technical approach, delivery visibility, replacement process and cost transparency.

How do you weight a vendor evaluation scorecard?

Weight what predicts delivery for your project. For most product engineering work, the seniority of the proposed engineers deserves the largest single weight, around 20%, with vetting, experience and collaboration model next. Agree on weights before meeting vendors.

How many vendors should I evaluate?

Three to five on paper, two in depth. In-depth evaluation means interviewing the engineers each vendor proposes and calling references with specific questions.

Should cost be the most important criterion?

Rarely. Compare cost at equal seniority and score how clearly the vendor explains it. A team that ships on time at a higher monthly rate usually costs less in total than a cheaper team that needs rework.

What are red flags when choosing a software development partner?

Refusing to show profiles of the engineers you will get, vague answers about vetting, no reachable references for similar work, unclear ownership of code, and a plan that could apply to any client. Also be wary of rates far below market for senior engineers.

Questions we didn't answer? Email info@ryzlabs.com.