A decision matrix template is a grid that scores several options against the same weighted criteria. Each score is multiplied by its weight and added up, so the option with the highest total is the one the evidence supports.
It is a ready-made table for choosing between options when no single factor settles the question. Options run across the top, the things that matter run down the side, and every criterion carries a weight showing how much it counts.
Teams reach for one when several people have to agree: picking a software vendor, a supplier, an office location or a project to fund. Writing the weights down before anyone scores stops the discussion drifting towards whichever option has the most vocal supporter.
The finished sheet also doubles as a record. Months later, anyone can see which options were considered, how each scored and why the winner won, which matters when a contract is questioned at renewal or audit.
The two to six choices you are comparing, each in its own column.
The factors that decide the outcome, such as fit, cost, security or support.
A percentage for each criterion showing its importance, adding up to 100.
A 1-5 rating for every option on every criterion, using written anchors.
Score times weight, summed per option, so the ranking falls out of the numbers.
Ready to use in Excel and Google Sheets. Fill it in, save it, reuse it.
Write the question in one line, such as which project management tool to buy for 120 users. Name who decides.
Shortlist two to six realistic choices. More than six and scoring turns into guesswork.
Pick four to eight criteria and split 100 points between them before anyone looks at scores.
Rate every option 1-5 on every criterion, ideally with each scorer working alone first.
Check the ranking, test the weights, then save the sheet with the final choice and the reason.
Start with a 3 x 4 grid: three options across the top, four criteria down the side, scores 1-5, totals at the bottom. Add weights once the group agrees which criteria matter most.
This example compares three project management tools for a 120-person operations team. The weights were agreed in a 30-minute meeting before any demos, which is what keeps the result honest. Each cell shows the raw score with the weighted score in brackets.
| Criterion | Weight % | Brightline Software | Orbit Analytics | Kestrel Data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Functional fit | 30 | 4 (1.20) | 5 (1.50) | 3 (0.90) |
| Total cost, 3 years | 20 | 3 (0.60) | 2 (0.40) | 5 (1.00) |
| Security and compliance | 15 | 5 (0.75) | 4 (0.60) | 3 (0.45) |
| Ease of use | 15 | 4 (0.60) | 3 (0.45) | 5 (0.75) |
| Integrations | 10 | 3 (0.30) | 4 (0.40) | 3 (0.30) |
| Vendor support | 10 | 4 (0.40) | 3 (0.30) | 3 (0.30) |
| Weighted total (out of 5) | 100 | 3.85 | 3.65 | 3.70 |
Illustrative scores for fictional vendors. Weighted score = raw score x weight / 100.
Brightline leads by 0.15 points, which is narrow. Before signing, run the sensitivity check in Part 5 to see whether a small change in weights flips the ranking.
| Gap between first and second | What it means | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| More than 0.5 | Clear winner | Decide and record the reasons. |
| 0.2 to 0.5 | Likely winner | Confirm the top two scores with evidence, then decide. |
| Under 0.2 | Too close to call | Run the sensitivity check or a short trial before deciding. |
Rule of thumb for a 1-5 scale, not a fixed standard.
The layout below works in Excel and Google Sheets without changes. Criteria sit in rows 2 to 7, totals in row 9, and a check cell warns you if the weights stop adding up to 100.
Headers in row 1, six criteria in rows 2-7, totals in rows 9-11. Add columns F onwards for more options.
| Col | Header | Entry or formula | What it does |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Criterion | Text | One factor per row, phrased so a higher score is always better |
| B | Weight % | Number, e.g. 30 | Share of the decision this criterion carries |
| C-E | Option names | Score 1-5 | Raw score for each option on each criterion |
| B9 | Weight check | =IF(SUM(B2:B7)=100, | Flags weights that do not add to 100 |
| C9 | Weighted total | =SUMPRODUCT($B$2:$B$7, | Score x weight, summed, out of 5. Copy right to E9 |
| C10 | Rank | =RANK(C9, | 1 = highest weighted total |
| C11 | Share of maximum | =C9/5 | Format as a percentage to show the total out of 100% |
| B13 | Winner | =INDEX($C$1:$E$1, | Returns the name of the top option |
| B14 | Gap to second | =LARGE($C$9:$E$9, | How far ahead the winner is |
Two small settings prevent most broken matrices.
| Setting | Rule or formula |
|---|---|
| Data validation on C2:E7 (whole number between 1 and 5) | =AND(ISNUMBER(C2), |
| Highlight blank scores in C2:E7 | =ISBLANK(C2) |
| Highlight the winning column in row 9 | =C9=MAX($C$9:$E$9) |
Weights are where most decision matrices go wrong. If cost and value for money both appear, price is counted twice; if security is weighted at 5%, a vendor that fails your security review can still win. Agree the weights in one short meeting and lock the cells.
Anything that is non-negotiable, such as single sign-on or data residency, becomes a pass or fail check before the matrix.
Combine price, discounts and implementation fees into one total cost criterion.
Give the largest share to the outcome the decision exists for, usually fit, and no criterion more than 40.
Protect column B and note who agreed the weights and when.
| Decision | Typical criteria | Usual top weight |
|---|---|---|
| Software vendor | Functional fit, total cost, security, ease of use, integrations, support | Functional fit, 25-35 |
| Supplier of goods | Unit cost, quality, lead time, capacity, financial stability | Quality or cost, 25-35 |
| Project or initiative | Strategic value, cost, effort, risk, time to benefit | Strategic value, 30-40 |
| Office or location | Rent, commute, space, lease flexibility, fit-out cost | Rent, 25-35 |
Starting points only. Your own priorities should set the final weights.
A bare 1-5 scale invites gut feel. Writing what a 1, 3 and 5 look like for each criterion takes ten minutes and makes scores comparable across people. Ask scorers to note the evidence behind any 1 or 5.
| Score | General meaning | Example anchor: integrations |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Exceeds every requirement | Native connectors for all five systems we use, plus an open API |
| 4 | Meets every requirement | Native connectors for four systems, API for the fifth |
| 3 | Meets most requirements | Native connectors for three systems, the rest via a third-party tool |
| 2 | Meets some, with workarounds | One native connector, manual exports for the rest |
| 1 | Does not meet the requirement | No connectors and no usable API |
A close result is common, so test it before acting on it. The table below reruns the example with three different weightings. It shows that Brightline wins when fit leads, but Kestrel wins as soon as cost carries more weight.
| Scenario | Weights changed | Brightline | Orbit | Kestrel |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Base case | Fit 30, cost 20 | 3.85 | 3.65 | 3.70 |
| Cost-led | Fit 20, cost 30 | 3.75 | 3.35 | 3.90 |
| Unweighted | All equal | 3.83 | 3.50 | 3.67 |
Illustrative recalculation of the Part 1 example.
Here the question is no longer which tool scores best but whether the team values functional fit over three-year cost. That is a budget conversation, and the matrix has made it explicit. For software, checking quotes against pricing benchmarks often settles the cost score with evidence.
Choosing software? Spendflo pricing benchmarks show what similar companies pay before you score cost.
See pricing benchmarksCriteria carry different weights. Best for vendor, supplier and investment decisions.
Every criterion counts the same. Fine for a quick first cut of a long list.
Each option is rated better, same or worse than a baseline. Useful in early design work.
Criteria are compared two at a time to derive the weights. Helpful when the group cannot agree on numbers.
A 2 x 2 grid of urgent and important. Sorts tasks rather than comparing options.
| Criterion | Current tool (baseline) | Brightline Software | Kestrel Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| Functional fit | 0 | + | 0 |
| Total cost | 0 | - | + |
| Security | 0 | + | 0 |
| Ease of use | 0 | + | + |
| Net (plus minus minus) | 0 | +2 | +2 |
Illustrative. A tie here is the cue to move to a weighted matrix.
A one-line decision statement keeps criteria tied to the actual choice.
Weights set after demos tend to drift towards the favourite option.
Separate scores reveal disagreement that a group discussion would hide.
A short reason for every 1 or 5 makes the matrix defensible later.
Shift ten points between the top criteria and see if the winner holds.
Past eight, small criteria dilute the ones that actually decide the outcome.
Price, value and discounts listed separately give cost far more weight than intended.
A failed security review should rule an option out, not cost it a few points.
The matrix informs the decision; a 0.1 gap still needs judgement.
Cut the long list to three to five options using the must-have gates.
Hold one 30-minute meeting, split 100 points and lock column B.
Each scorer rates every option after demos, references or trials, with a note per score.
Review the totals, the gap and the sensitivity table, then record the decision and reasons.
Northwind Logistics shortlisted Brightline, Orbit and Kestrel, weighted fit at 30 and cost at 20, and scored after two-week trials. Brightline won 3.85 to 3.70. Raising cost to 30 made Kestrel the winner, so the CFO was asked directly: pay the higher three-year cost for better fit? She approved Brightline. Figures illustrative.
Every part on this page, in Excel and Google Sheets, with the examples filled in.
Three options, four criteria, equal weights. One person scores and shares the sheet for comment.
Six to eight weighted criteria with security as a gate. Use a full vendor assessment for the shortlist.
Several scorers, written anchors for every criterion, a sensitivity table and named sign-off by the budget owner.
Best for a single owner and offline work.
Best when scorers work in parallel.
Five options and eight criteria with formulas ready.
$3.7B in software spend processed through Spendflo, at 30% average savings.
See your savingsA good decision matrix shows which option wins, by how much and on what assumptions. When the result is close, the sensitivity check tells you exactly which trade-off the group has to settle.
Six weighted criteria and a 1-5 scale rank any set of options.
Open the matrix →2SUMPRODUCT, RANK and INDEX turn the grid into an automatic ranking.
Open the formulas →3A ten-point shift in weights shows whether the winner is solid.
Open the sensitivity check →Quick answers to what people ask most about the decision matrix template.
List your options across the top, your criteria down the side, give each criterion a weight so the weights total 100, then score each option 1-5. Multiply each score by its weight and add the results to rank the options. You can download the template on this page to skip the setup.
It asks how you will feel about a choice in 10 minutes, 10 months and 10 years, to separate short-term discomfort from long-term impact. It suits personal decisions, while a weighted matrix suits business choices with several options. Download the matrix if you need to compare options on agreed criteria.
Yes, this page offers a free decision matrix template to download in Excel or Google Sheets. It includes weighted criteria, a 1-5 scale with anchors, SUMPRODUCT totals, a rank formula and a sensitivity tab.
Set and weight your criteria, score every option against each criterion, then multiply and total to rank the options. A fourth step, testing the weights, is worth adding for close results. The download walks through all of them with a worked example.
You can download it free from this page in Excel or Google Sheets, with a blank 5 x 8 version included. Both come with the formulas, weight check and winner cell already set up.
Vendor management
Purchase orders
Contracts
Sourcing and RFx
Budgets and business cases
Procurement
Accounts payable
Purchasing
Software buying
Supply chain
Spendflo handles intake, approvals and pricing benchmarks for software purchases, so the cost score in your matrix rests on real numbers.
Enter your work email and we'll unlock every format.
Didn't start, or need another format? Pick one below.
Google Sheets: upload the file to Google Drive, then open it with Google Sheets.
