Procurement · Free tool
Vendor Comparison Tool
Which supplier should you pick when the cheapest one is also the slowest? This tool compares two to four vendors on price, lead time in days, and a quality score you assign from 1 to 5, then recommends one. It is built for procurement leads, operations managers, and founders who buy without a sourcing team.
- OutputA recommendation and the tradeoff
- No sign-up
- Copy or print the result
- How it works ↓
Your entries stay in this browser. Use Fill example to see a finished page first.
What this procurement tool gives you
The output opens with a recommendation and its score out of 100, then spells out the tradeoff: who is cheapest, who is fastest, who has the best quality, and how much more the recommended vendor costs or how many more days it takes. A ranked table shows every vendor, including payment terms.
What you enter
- Currency: USD by default, or EUR or GBP
- Vendor name (two to four vendors)
- Price quoted by each vendor, in your currency, for the same scope
- Lead time, in days
- Quality, your own judgment on a scale of 1 to 5
- Payment terms, as free text such as Net 30 (shown in the table but not scored)
Worked example
The built-in example compares Northwind ($2,400, 21 days, quality 3), Harbor ($3,100, 7 days, quality 5), and Field Press ($2,800, 14 days, quality 4). Harbor scores 92.5 out of 100, Field Press 71.9, and Northwind 64.4. Harbor is recommended even though it costs $700 more than Northwind, because it is the fastest and highest quality.
How does the vendor comparison score work?
Each vendor gets three sub-scores between 0 and 1. Price score = lowest price among the vendors ÷ this vendor's price. Lead-time score = shortest lead time ÷ this vendor's lead time. Quality score = quality ÷ 5. The overall score is the plain average of the three, shown out of 100, so price, speed, and quality carry equal weight.
The highest score is recommended. Ties are broken by higher quality, then lower price, then shorter lead time, then name. Payment terms are displayed but not scored, and any vendor with blank terms is listed in a note. The result is a recommendation, not a purchase order.
Tips before you use the result
- Quote every vendor on the same scope, quantity, and delivery terms; otherwise the price score compares different things.
- Because the three factors are weighted equally, a vendor can win on speed and quality while costing noticeably more. If price matters most to you, use the supplier score tool with custom weights instead.
- Write down why you gave each quality score; a 4 versus a 5 moves the ranking and will be questioned later.
- Check payment terms separately, since upfront payment versus Net 30 can change the real cost to your cash.
Frequently asked questions
How do you compare vendors objectively?
Agree on the criteria before you see the quotes, measure every vendor on the same basis, and make the weighting explicit. This tool uses three criteria, price, lead time, and quality, and weights them equally. Scores are relative to the best vendor on each measure, so the result tells you who leads overall and what you give up by choosing them.
Why is the cheapest vendor not recommended?
Price is one third of the score. A vendor that is slightly more expensive but much faster and higher quality can outscore the cheapest option. The tradeoff list states exactly how much more the recommended vendor costs than the cheapest one, so you can decide whether that premium is worth the speed and quality.
Are payment terms included in the score?
No. Payment terms are shown in the ranked table so they stay visible, but they are not scored, because terms like Net 30 and 50% upfront do not reduce to a single number without more information. If a vendor's terms are blank, the tool names it in the note so you can ask before deciding.
Can I save a vendor comparison and come back later?
Yes, on the same browser. The vendors you enter are kept in local storage on your device, and there is no account to create. Copy output gives you text for an email or approval request, and Print gives you a one-page record.
More Procurement tools
Procurement guides on Kurums
Record Imports, a Narrower Deficit: Reading the September 2026 US Trade Data as a Procurement Leader
The US trade deficit narrowed to $105.0 billion in September 2026 even as imports hit a record. What the data means for sourcing, landed cost and year-end planning.
US Trade Deficit Narrows to $105 Billion in September 2026: Notes for Procurement
BEA and Census reported on November 4, 2026 that the U.S. goods and services trade deficit narrowed to $105.0 billion in September as exports rose more than imports, with both at elevated levels.
The November 9 Tariff Cliff: A Landed-Cost Playbook for Expiring Section 301 Exclusions
The last 178 Section 301 exclusions lapse Nov 9, 2026. Size exposure by SKU, weigh accelerate, absorb or re-source, and plan for both outcomes.
Section 301 China Product Exclusions Expire November 9, 2026: Notes for Procurement
The remaining 178 Section 301 product exclusions on Chinese goods expire at 11:59 p.m. ET on November 9, 2026. Entries on or after November 10 lose the exclusion unless USTR extends them.
Big Oil’s Refining Windfall: Why Margins, Not Crude, Drove Exxon and Chevron’s Q3 Beat
Exxon and Chevron beat Q3 forecasts on war-driven refining margins. What the crack-spread surge means for diesel and jet-fuel buyers, with a procurement playbook.
ExxonMobil and Chevron Q3 Refining Profits Surge on October 30, 2026: Notes for Procurement
ExxonMobil and Chevron reported stronger-than-expected third-quarter profits on October 30, driven by multi-year highs in refining margins amid supply disruptions. Procurement teams should review fuel contracts.
Results depend on the figures you enter; check them against your own records before you rely on them. Last updated: October 2026 · Kurums editorial team.