A scorecard turns a stack of demos into comparable numbers. Here are the criteria, suggested weights, a 0 to 4 scale tied to evidence and the hands-on tasks that make scores honest. Copy it, change the weights and fill it in with your team.
Free sandbox · No credit card · 21 CFR Part 11 aligned
| Criterion | Weight | Vendor A | Vendor B | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study build speed | 20% | 3 | 4 | |
| Compliance evidence | 20% | 4 | 3 | |
| Monitoring and queries | 15% | 3 | 3 | |
| Total cost clarity | 15% | 2 | 4 | |
| Amendment handling | 15% | 2 | 4 | |
| Support and training | 15% | 3 | 3 |
The short version
Why a scorecard
Most EDC evaluations produce a pile of demo notes and one strong opinion. A scorecard forces the team to say what matters, in numbers, before and after each vendor appears. It complements two other documents rather than replacing them: the EDC RFP template gets comparable written answers from vendors, and the EDC procurement checklist lists what to look for. The scorecard is where those answers, plus what you saw hands-on, become a decision you can defend to a budget holder or a sponsor.
It is also the antidote to feature-list comparison. Almost every EDC claims queries, audit trails and signatures. What differs is how long a change takes, who must be involved, what it costs and what evidence backs the compliance statement. A good scorecard weights those differences rather than counting ticks. The wider selection logic is in how to choose an EDC system.
The template
Weights add to 100 and are a starting point for a first regulated study. Move them to fit yours; a registry team will weight eConsent and ePRO higher, a late-phase team monitoring and SDV.
| Criterion | Suggested weight | What earns a 4 | Hands-on task |
|---|---|---|---|
| Study build speed | 15 | Your team builds forms and visits without vendor tickets | Build three forms and a visit schedule from your protocol |
| Compliance evidence | 20 | Documented Part 11-aligned controls and validation support, tested by you | Change a value, read the audit trail, sign a form |
| Data quality and queries | 15 | Edit checks raise queries automatically; full query history | Break a range rule and follow the query |
| Amendment handling | 10 | Mid-study changes without change orders, with versioning | Add a field to a live form |
| Monitoring and SDV | 10 | SDV per field, role-limited monitor view | Verify and then alter a field |
| Total cost clarity | 10 | Every fee listed: setup, sites, seats, amendments, closeout | Fill in a cost worksheet with each vendor |
| Integrated eConsent and ePRO | 10 | One record and one audit trail across modules | Consent a test participant and complete a diary |
| Hosting, security, data residency | 5 | Regions you need, encryption, role-based access | Review documentation and role set-up |
| Support and training | 5 | Named response times, training materials, UAT help | Ask a real question and time the answer |
Running it
Everyone on the evaluation team allocates 100 points across the criteria independently, then you reconcile. Disagreements are useful: they show where your team has different assumptions.
0 not available, 1 promised or roadmap, 2 available but manual or extra cost, 3 works as described in a demo, 4 verified hands-on or backed by a document you hold.
Use a real protocol excerpt. Where a vendor offers a free sandbox, such as Capture's, the task takes an afternoon. Where it does not, ask for a supervised trial environment.
Each evaluator scores alone to avoid anchoring. Average, then discuss any criterion where scores differ by two or more.
Disqualify regardless of score if a vendor cannot show an audit trail, will not state fees in writing or requires a change order for routine form changes you expect to make.
File the scorecard, test logs and rationale in the study master file. It supports vendor qualification and any later audit of the selection.
Run your hands-on tasks in the Capture free sandbox: build forms, trigger queries, amend a visit and export the data. No credit card, and you pay only when you go live.
Where scorecards go wrong
Two rows deserve extra attention because they separate quote-first vendors from self-serve ones. Total cost clarity should be scored against the list of fees you collected in writing, not the headline figure in a proposal: setup, per-site activation, per-seat licences, amendment charges and database lock or closeout fees. If a vendor will not list them, score the row low and note it. The EDC cost for a 100-patient trial worksheet gives you the formula.
Amendment handling is the other. Protocols change, and a system where every change is a ticket and a change order turns a two-day correction into a two-week one. Capture's answer is that your study team edits forms and visits itself, with no change orders, and approved forms are locked for live use with versioning; see protocol amendments without change orders. Whatever you are scoring, run the amendment task yourself.
Keep the scorecard honest by recording who scored what and why. A short note beside each number, such as "built three forms in 40 minutes" or "amendment needed a vendor ticket", turns a subjective table into an audit-ready record and makes the final discussion about observations rather than adjectives. Re-score if a vendor changes an answer in writing after the demo.
Red flags worth writing on the scorecard: no way to export the audit trail, no documented validation support for regulated studies, no clear data export or exit terms, and compliance statements that cannot be traced to a document. For the compliance row, computer system validation explains what evidence to expect, and you can compare institution-hosted options on the REDCap comparison.
Before the first demo
Data manager, clinical lead, statistician, quality and budget holder.
Sum to 100 and dated before any demo.
0 to 4 with evidence required for 4.
Protocol excerpt, form set and amendment scenario.
Setup, sites, seats, amendments, closeout, in writing.
Agreed disqualifiers.
Where scores, logs and rationale will be filed.
Eight to ten. Fewer hides trade-offs; more dilutes weights and makes scoring tedious.
The table is a starting point for a first regulated study. Agree your own before demos, and move weight toward whatever your study depends on most.
Score on documents and hands-on tests, not claims. Check the audit trail, signatures, access control and the validation support the vendor will provide.
Yes. The free sandbox has every feature, with no credit card and no time limit, so you can run the hands-on tasks yourself.
No. The RFP collects written answers; the scorecard converts those answers and your hands-on testing into a comparable result.
Weight cost clarity rather than the lowest figure. A low headline with change orders and per-site fees can cost more than a transparent alternative.
Yes. Capture is suitable for Phase 1, 2 and 3 studies.
Keep exploring
EDC RFP template
Collect comparable written answers.
EDC procurement checklist
What to look for.
How to choose an EDC system
The selection logic.
EDC cost for a 100-patient trial
A cost worksheet.
EDC implementation timeline
After you choose, plan the build and go-live.
Capture vs REDCap
An institution-hosted comparison.
Free sandbox with every feature. No credit card, and you pay only when you go live.