Loading page
About this tool
Score AI vendors on cost, control, support and compliance with a weighted decision matrix and get a ranked shortlist.
This tool ranks competing AI vendors with a weighted-sum decision matrix: each vendor is scored 1–5 on cost, control, support and compliance, each criterion carries a weight you set, and the result is a normalised 0–100 score per vendor. It is built for teams choosing between AI API providers, model hosts or SaaS AI products who need a defensible, written-down basis for the shortlist rather than gut feel. The method is the standard additive weighted scoring model used in procurement RFP evaluations.
Open AI Vendor Comparison Matrix on AltFTool — it loads instantly in your browser.
Provide your input — an image, text, or data.
Let the tool analyze or generate the result.
Review, refine, and reuse the output wherever you need it.
Each criterion's weight is normalised by the total, so a 40/20/20/20 split genuinely doubles the impact of the top criterion.
The ranking flags exact ties and shows how many points separate the winner from the runner-up.
One click copies the full ranked matrix with weights and per-criterion scores for the decision record.
Use a weighted scoring matrix: pick criteria (commonly cost, control, support and compliance), assign each a weight, score every vendor 1–5 per criterion, and compute sum(weight × score) ÷ sum(weights). This tool normalises that result to a 0–100 scale so vendors are directly comparable, and equal totals are reported as a tie rather than an arbitrary winner.
The four axes most evaluations converge on are cost (unit pricing, volume tiers, hidden fees), control (data residency, model choice, exit terms and lock-in), support (SLA and response times) and compliance (SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification, a GDPR data processing agreement, retention and audit controls). Their relative weight depends on your use case — a healthcare team typically weights compliance highest, a consumer app may weight cost.
It is the simple additive form of multi-criteria decision analysis: each criterion gets a weight, each option gets a score per criterion, and the option's total is the weight-normalised sum of its scores. It is widely used in RFP evaluations because it makes trade-offs explicit and auditable, though it assumes criteria are independent of each other.
On this tool's 0–100 scale, 80 and above reads as a strong fit, 60–79 a good fit, 40–59 mixed, and below 40 weak. The bands are guidance only — a vendor scoring 85 overall can still fail on a single non-negotiable requirement, so treat any must-have (for example a signed DPA) as a pass/fail gate outside the matrix.