Integration Evaluation Scorecard

Use this scorecard when evaluating a new integration, tool, or vendor for your GTM tech stack. Score each candidate across the criteria below to make an objective, documented decision.

Evaluation Criteria

Score each criterion from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).

1. Functionality Fit (Weight: 30%)

Score	Criteria
5	Meets 100% of must-have requirements and 80%+ of nice-to-haves
4	Meets 100% of must-haves and 50-79% of nice-to-haves
3	Meets 90%+ of must-haves with workarounds for gaps
2	Meets 70-89% of must-haves, significant gaps in core functionality
1	Fails to meet multiple must-have requirements

2. Integration Quality (Weight: 25%)

Score	Criteria
5	Native integration with our core stack (CRM, MAP, BI), real-time sync, bidirectional data flow
4	Native integration with most tools, near-real-time sync, minor limitations
3	Integration available via middleware (Zapier, Workato), some manual configuration needed
2	API available but requires custom development, no pre-built connectors
1	No API or integration options, data must be moved manually

3. Data Quality and Reliability (Weight: 15%)

Score	Criteria
5	99.9%+ uptime SLA, data accuracy validated through our testing, real-time error handling
4	99.5%+ uptime, strong data accuracy, good error logging
3	99%+ uptime, acceptable accuracy, basic error notifications
2	Occasional downtime or data sync failures, limited visibility into errors
1	Frequent reliability issues, data discrepancies, poor error handling

4. Total Cost of Ownership (Weight: 15%)

Score	Criteria
5	Within budget, transparent pricing, no hidden fees, includes support and maintenance
4	Within budget with minor additional costs for premium features or support
3	At the upper end of budget, some costs not fully transparent
2	Exceeds initial budget by 20-50%, requires additional spend on implementation
1	Significantly over budget, requires custom development or additional hires to manage

5. Vendor Viability and Support (Weight: 15%)

Score	Criteria
5	Established vendor, strong financials, dedicated account manager, <4 hour support response
4	Growing vendor, good funding, responsive support team, <8 hour response
3	Stable vendor, adequate support, <24 hour response
2	Early-stage vendor, limited support resources, inconsistent response times
1	Unproven vendor, poor or no support, risk of the product being discontinued

Requirements Checklist

Before scoring, document your requirements clearly.

Must-Have Requirements

• Requirement 1:
• Requirement 2:
• Requirement 3:
• Requirement 4:
• Requirement 5:

Nice-to-Have Requirements

• Requirement 1:
• Requirement 2:
• Requirement 3:

Comparison Matrix

Criteria	Weight	Tool A	Tool B	Tool C
Functionality Fit	30%	/5	/5	/5
Integration Quality	25%	/5	/5	/5
Data Quality	15%	/5	/5	/5
Total Cost	15%	/5	/5	/5
Vendor Viability	15%	/5	/5	/5
Weighted Score		/5.0	/5.0	/5.0

Weighted score formula: (Functionality x 0.30) + (Integration x 0.25) + (Data Quality x 0.15) + (Cost x 0.15) + (Vendor x 0.15)

Cost Comparison

Cost Element	Tool A	Tool B	Tool C
Annual license fee
Implementation / setup fee
Integration development cost
Training cost
Ongoing maintenance (annual)
Total Year 1 cost
Total 3-year cost

Decision Summary

Field	Details
Recommended tool
Weighted score
Key reasons for selection
Key risks
Mitigation plan for risks
Decision maker
Decision date
Implementation start date

Post-Implementation Review

Schedule a review 90 days after implementation.

Metric	Expected	Actual	Notes
Time to implement
Data accuracy
Uptime / reliability
Team adoption rate
Support quality
ROI indicators