/documd-visuals

Vendor Selection Scorecard — Row-by-Criterion Comparison (Infographic)

Best for: comparing two or three vendors across the criteria that actually decide the purchase Avoid when: there is a single veto criterion (say so in prose instead) Answers: which vendor wins each criterion, and where the decision is genuinely close

infographic compare-hierarchy-row-letter-card-compact-card
theme
  colorPrimary #2b66c4
  palette
    - #2b66c4
    - #2f9e44
    - #f3a33c
    - #d1242f
    - #7048e8
    - #0f9b9b
    - #c16f8a
    - #7c5a3d
data
  title Vendor Shortlist — Observability
  desc Scored on the criteria in our procurement policy
  compares
    - label VendorA
      desc On-prem option, higher cost
      children
        - label Data residency
          desc EU region native
        - label Cost at 5TB/day
          desc $41K per year
        - label Migration effort
          desc 6 weeks
    - label VendorB
      desc Best tooling, no residency
      children
        - label Data residency
          desc US only today
        - label Cost at 5TB/day
          desc $28K per year
        - label Migration effort
          desc 3 weeks

Data Shape

compares holds one entry per vendor; each vendor's children are the criteria rows. Keep the same criteria in the same order for every vendor — the whole point is vertical comparability.

Key Options

Pitfalls

• ❌ Different criteria per vendor → ✅ identical rows make differences visible
• ❌ Hiding the awkward criterion → ✅ data residency is exactly the row the reader needs
• ❌ Four or more vendors → ✅ past three columns, switch to a scored table

Alternatives