Need Help Evaluating Blockchain Vendors?
Get expert guidance on selecting the right development partner.
Tool Workspace
Use, understand, and apply the results
Tool Overview
Use this scoring matrix to evaluate blockchain development vendors side by side. Score each vendor 1–5 on each criterion.
Key Result
A vendor comparison matrix with 6 weighted criteria: Portfolio quality (20% — verifiable deployments, published audits), Team verification (20% — named engineers, GitHub profiles, references), Process maturity (20% — technical specification, audit integration, testing standards), Communication quality (15% — response time, technical clarity, transparency), Timeline reliability (15% — on-time delivery, milestones, change order process), Price competitiveness (10% — fixed vs T&M, milestones). Disqualifying red flags: no deployed contract addresses, no published audit reports, unwilling to provide references, fixed-price without seeing requirements.
SCORING MATRIX
| Criterion | Weight | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Portfolio quality | 20% | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| Verifiable deployed contracts | ||||
| Published audit reports | ||||
| Comparable use cases delivered | ||||
| Team verification | 20% | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| Named engineers with GitHub profiles | ||||
| Auditable on-chain contribution history | ||||
| Client reference calls available | ||||
| Process maturity | 20% | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| Technical specification before coding | ||||
| Audit integration in workflow | ||||
| Defined testing standards (coverage %) | ||||
| Communication quality | 15% | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| Response time during evaluation | ||||
| Clarity of technical explanations | ||||
| Transparent about limitations | ||||
| Timeline reliability | 15% | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| References confirm on-time delivery | ||||
| Milestone-based project structure | ||||
| Change order process defined | ||||
| Price competitiveness | 10% | /5 | /5 | /5 |
| Within budget for scope | ||||
| Fixed price vs T&M model | ||||
| Payment milestones tied to deliverables |
Criterion
Portfolio quality
Weight
20%
Vendor A
/5
Vendor B
/5
Vendor C
/5
Criterion
Verifiable deployed contracts
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Published audit reports
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Comparable use cases delivered
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Team verification
Weight
20%
Vendor A
/5
Vendor B
/5
Vendor C
/5
Criterion
Named engineers with GitHub profiles
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Auditable on-chain contribution history
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Client reference calls available
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Process maturity
Weight
20%
Vendor A
/5
Vendor B
/5
Vendor C
/5
Criterion
Technical specification before coding
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Audit integration in workflow
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Defined testing standards (coverage %)
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Communication quality
Weight
15%
Vendor A
/5
Vendor B
/5
Vendor C
/5
Criterion
Response time during evaluation
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Clarity of technical explanations
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Transparent about limitations
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Timeline reliability
Weight
15%
Vendor A
/5
Vendor B
/5
Vendor C
/5
Criterion
References confirm on-time delivery
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Milestone-based project structure
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Change order process defined
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Price competitiveness
Weight
10%
Vendor A
/5
Vendor B
/5
Vendor C
/5
Criterion
Within budget for scope
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Fixed price vs T&M model
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
Criterion
Payment milestones tied to deliverables
Weight
Vendor A
Vendor B
Vendor C
WEIGHTED SCORE CALCULATION
Vendor score = Σ (criterion_score × weight)
Example: Portfolio: 4 × 0.20 = 0.80, Team: 3 × 0.20 = 0.60, Process: 5 × 0.20 = 1.00, Communication: 4 × 0.15 = 0.60, Timeline: 4 × 0.15 = 0.60, Price: 3 × 0.10 = 0.30, Total: 3.90 / 5.00
DISQUALIFYING RED FLAGS (Any = Reject)
Cannot provide deployed contract addresses on Etherscan
No published audit reports from independent firm
Unwilling to provide direct client references
Fixed-price quote without seeing technical requirements
Promises "will not need an audit" or "audit is optional"
Development team is anonymous
No technical specification in their process
CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO ASK
"Show me the Etherscan links for your three most comparable deployments."
"Which security audit firm do you work with? Show me their published reports."
"Can I speak with the engineer who will actually write my smart contracts?"
"What is your test coverage standard? Can you show me a sample test suite?"
"What happens if the audit finds Critical findings? Who pays for remediation?"
"What are the payment milestones tied to?"
"Have you built a comparable project for a US client navigating SEC/FinCEN?"