Records Management Software Comparison Scorecard
A vendor-neutral tool for scoring records management software against the criteria that matter to a compliance-driven team.
How to use: 1) Set a Weight for each criterion (3 = must-have, 2 = important, 1 = nice-to-have). 2) Score each vendor 0-5 on how well it meets that criterion. 3) Read the weighted totals at the bottom. Yellow cells are the ones you edit.
Scoring key: 0 = not offered 1 = weak 2 = partial 3 = adequate 4 = strong 5 = excellent. Vendor A is pre-filled as a worked example; clear or overwrite it with your own shortlist.
| Criterion | Why it matters | Question to ask the vendor | Weight (1-3) | Vendor A | Vendor B | Vendor C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Records classification & taxonomy | Consistent classification makes records findable and auditable. | Do you support a controlled vocabulary or thesaurus? | ||||
| Retention & disposition scheduling | Enforces how long records are kept and when they are destroyed. | Can retention rules be automated and evidenced? | ||||
| Legal hold | Suspends disposition when litigation or audit is anticipated. | How are holds applied and released? | ||||
| Audit trail & chain of custody | Proves who did what and when, which is essential for defensibility. | Is every action logged and tamper-evident? | ||||
| Access control & security | Limits who can view or change records. | Is access role-based, and how is it managed? | ||||
| Metadata & standards support | Aligns records to recognized standards. | Do you support ISO 15489 and Dublin Core metadata? | ||||
| Search & retrieval | Fast, accurate retrieval under audit pressure. | How does search handle metadata and full text? | ||||
| Integration | Records live in other systems too. | Do you integrate with SharePoint, iManage or similar? | ||||
| Deployment & migration | Fit with IT policy and a safe switch from legacy tools. | Do you offer SaaS and on-premise, with migration support? | ||||
| Reporting & compliance dashboards | Evidence for auditors and leadership. | What compliance reporting is built in? |
| Weighted score (weight x score, summed) | 95 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Maximum possible weighted score | 120 | 120 | 120 | |||
| Score (% of maximum) | 79.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |||
Reading the result: weight the four non-negotiables most heavily (classification, retention scheduling, audit trail, access control), because they are what an auditor or court actually examines. A vendor can score well on convenience features and still fail the defensibility test. Use the weighted total to confirm a shortlist, then let demos validate the decision rather than create it.