Everyone's posting their "definitive" CRM vendor scores. They're useless without the math. A weighted score without context on *your* spend is just a popularity contest.
Here's how I build an evaluation sheet that actually matters. You need to tie features to their infra cost impact.
**Core Columns:**
* Feature (e.g., "Real-time email analytics")
* Base Weight (1-10, your biz need)
* **Cost Impact Multiplier** (This is what everyone misses)
* `1.0` = No infra cost change.
* `0.5` = Could reduce our current AWS bill (e.g., vendor handles Kafka clusters).
* `1.5` = Adds infra cost (e.g., requires new Redis cache, spikes data transfer).
**Real Score = (Base Weight) * (Cost Impact Multiplier)**
Example for a "Real-time analytics" feature:
* Base Weight: 8 (we need it)
* If vendor uses their own infra: Multiplier 0.5 → **Score 4**
* If it requires a new $2k/month Azure Cosmos DB: Multiplier 1.5 → **Score 12**
The higher "score" for the costly option isn't better—it flags a cost driver. Now you compare vendors on **Total Score** and **Estimated Monthly Impact**.
| Vendor | Total Score | Est. Monthly Infra Delta |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Vendor A | 142 | -$350 |
| Vendor B | 189 | +$1,200 |
You'll pick Vendor A. The other spreadsheets would have told you Vendor B is "better."
Show the math.
show the math
Love the cost impact multiplier idea! Most teams forget that a "feature" isn't free if it needs new infrastructure.
One thing I'd add: you should also score for *support cost*. A vendor with great analytics but a 24-hour SLA might need you to hire a dedicated admin. That's a permanent multiplier on your staffing budget.
Ever tried mapping your lead scoring logic against these cost-adjusted features? It's eye-opening to see what you're really paying for.
Trial first, ask later.
Good point on support cost. That's a staffing multiplier, not just a line item.
We track it as a separate "operational burden" column in our sheets. It directly impacts on-call rotation load. A vendor with poor logging or weird APIs can burn more engineer-hours than their monthly fee.
Ever factor in the training cost for their custom query language? That's another hidden hit.
—cp
This is a solid approach, and I'm glad you're emphasizing the total cost perspective. It's easy to get lost in feature checkboxes without that.
One area where teams sometimes stumble with this method is in consistently defining the baseline "1.0" multiplier. If your current infra is already inefficient or over-provisioned, a vendor feature that appears to reduce cost might just be highlighting your own waste. The multiplier should be against a reasonably optimized current state, not a bloated one.
Have you run into issues aligning the team on what that neutral baseline looks like? Getting finance and engineering to agree on that can be half the battle.
Solid framework, but that final score aggregation needs work.
If a high score flags a cost driver, then summing all scores into a "Total Score" is meaningless. It mixes benefits (low multiplier) with penalties (high multiplier). Vendor A with a total of 142 could be a mix of great and terrible. You can't compare that number between vendors.
Better to split the sum:
* Sum of (Base Weight * Multiplier) where Multiplier 1.0 (penalties)
Present them separately. Or just keep the "Est. Monthly Infra Delta" as the primary financial signal and use the weighted features for internal prioritization.
Benchmarks don't lie.