Why a SAAS marketing supplier comparison needs a scoring sheet

What to take away

Treat your SAAS marketing supplier comparison as a scored decision, not a beauty parade: agree the criteria and their weights before any pitch.
Compare no more than four suppliers against weighted criteria: the job to be done (the heaviest weight), evidence of similar work, data handling, accessibility and total cost.
Ask every supplier for the same five written artefactsa named delivery team, a written scope, two callable references, a data processing statement and a twelve-month cost breakdown.
Treat regulated claims as a pass or fail test. The advertising codes published by the ASA and CAP apply to B2B software marketing as much as to consumer advertising.
Budget for implementation, not just the retainer. Onboarding, tracking setup and content migration usually sit outside the monthly fee.

Why does a supplier comparison fail without weighted criteria?

Most comparisons collapse into a beauty parade. Three decks look polished, two quotes look similar, and the decision lands with whoever presented last. Weighting fixes that. Score each supplier out of five on criteria you agreed before any pitch took place.

Weighted supplier scoring process

Agree criteria before any pitch
Score each supplier out of five
Give the job itself heaviest weight
Cap the shortlist at four suppliers

Give the job itself the heaviest weight. A team that needs pipeline from a narrow technical audience is buying different work from a team that needs category awareness. If that is not settled, the SAAS marketing software selection in England guide shows how tooling choices constrain what an agency can realistically deliver.

CAP the shortlist at four. Beyond that, the marginal information from each extra pitch falls away and the process drags into a second month.

What does the scoring sheet look like?

Build the sheet before you see a single deck. Five criteria sit in rows, a weight sits beside each one and the weights add up to 100. A workable starting split for a mid-market SaaS team is: job to be done 35, evidence of similar work 25, data handling 15, accessibility 10 and total cost 15. Change the split for your own context, but write it down and send it with the brief so every supplier is scored the same way.

Score each criterion from 1 to 5, with the same meaning for every supplier:

1no evidence at all, or a claim you cannot check.
2relevant experience mentioned, but no example you can inspect.
3one similar project, with a reference willing to speak.
4two or more similar projects, plus a written method.
5named team, documented method, reference calls completed and a fixed review point.

Worked example. Supplier A scores 5 on the job to be done (35 points), 3 on evidence (15 points), 4 on data handling (12 points), 2 on accessibility (4 points) and 4 on total cost (12 points), which is 78 out of 100. Supplier B scores 4, 4, 3, 4 and 5 — 28, 20, 9, 8 and 15 points — so 80 out of 100. Supplier B wins on the sheet even though Supplier A gave the better pitch, which is exactly the protection the sheet exists to give.

Which evidence should you ask every supplier for?

Ask for the same five items from everyone, in writing.

Five evidence items to request

Two case studies from last 18 months
Names and roles of delivery team
Data processing statement
Sample reporting pack
Written scope separating fixed and optional

The five artefacts to request in writing are:

A named delivery team, with the people who will actually run the work, not only the pitch leads.
A written scope, listing deliverables, dates and what counts as done.
Two references from similar SaaS engagements that you can call yourself.
A data processing statement, covering where audience and lead data is stored and who can access it.
A twelve-month cost breakdown split into setup, recurring work and media or platform spend, with the 90-day review point included.

The SAAS marketing tools and supplier guide for 2027 sets out where the boundary should sit between a licence, a managed service and an internal hire, because software firms often buy agency support alongside platform licences and the two decisions overlap.

Where a supplier runs campaigns for several clients in the same category, ask how they keep messaging and audience data separate.

How do you price a comparison properly?

Compare total cost over twelve months, not the monthly retainer. For example, a team paying £4,000 a month on a twelve-month term is committing £48,000 before media spend, and the onboarding fee may add a further £3,000.

Split the quote into three columns: setup, recurring work and media or platform spend. Setup is where quotes hide the most. Tracking configuration, landing page builds and content migration are frequently billed separately.

Ask what happens at month three if results are weak. A supplier confident in its process will name a review point and a remedy. One that will not is telling you something useful.

Public sector buyers face additional constraints, and the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy publishes the policy notes and guidance that frame supplier selection for funded programmes.

What does a fair contract look like?

Look for a 90-day review, a 30-day notice period after an initial term, and clarity on who owns creative assets and audience lists. Ownership matters most for lookalike audiences built from your own customer data.

Check whether the supplier will work inside your ad account or only inside theirs. Agency-side accounts make a switch expensive, because audiences and historical performance data stay behind.

LinkedIn's agency resources for managing client campaigns describe how client and agency account permissions are structured on that platform, which is worth reading before you agree to any arrangement where the supplier holds the account.

Which UK rules should sit behind the scores?

Score data handling against something concrete. Under UK GDPR a supplier processing your leads or customer lists should sign a data processing agreement that names the controller, the processor and any sub-processors, and that states the retention period.

Two commercial checks belong on the sheet as well. If the delivery team is engaged through personal service companies, agree in writing who makes the IR35 status determination. And confirm whether fees are quoted exclusive of VAT, so a quote that looks cheaper does not turn out to be the same price once tax is added.

A comparison checklist

Weighted criteria agreed and signed off before pitches begin.
Four suppliers maximum, all given the same brief and the same deadline.
Named delivery team confirmed in writing.
Two reference calls completed, not offered.
Data processing statement received and reviewed.
Twelve-month total cost, split into setup, recurring and media.
Account ownership and asset ownership written into the contract.
Data processing agreement signed before any customer data is shared.
IR35 status and VAT treatment confirmed in writing.
90-day review point with a named remedy.

Common questions

How many suppliers should we shortlist?

Four is usually the practical ceiling. Three is often enough if the brief is tight and the criteria are weighted.

Should price decide the outcome?

No, but it should be visible across the full twelve months. A cheap retainer with heavy setup fees is rarely the cheapest option.

Do we need a formal tender process?

Only if you are a public body or receiving public funding. Private buyers can run a lighter process, provided the scoring is written down.

What is the biggest warning sign?

A pitch team that will not name the people doing the delivery work. Ask twice.

How do we weight the criteria?

Start from the split in the sheet above and move ten points at most between criteria. Whatever you agree, fix the weights before the pitches and share them with every supplier, so nobody is scored on a rule they never saw.