Buyer's Guide

The 25-point scorecard
for evaluating SIS platforms.

When multiple stakeholders evaluate the same demo and reach different conclusions, the problem usually isn't the vendor. It's the lack of a shared scoring framework.

Talk to Alma
The short answer

A useful SIS evaluation scorecard covers five categories: functionality (25 points), usability (25 points), implementation (20 points), technical fit (15 points), and vendor viability (15 points). Score each dimension 0-5 across five sub-criteria per category. Total possible: 100. Anything scoring below 75 has serious gaps.

Why scoring matters

When committees disagree, structure wins.

Every school and district evaluating an SIS has a committee. Teachers care about the gradebook. IT cares about integrations. Registrars care about state reporting. Business office cares about total cost. Without a shared framework, these viewpoints don't combine into a coherent decision.

How to use this scorecard:

  • Distribute to each committee member before demos, not after
  • Have members score independently, then discuss variance
  • Weight categories based on your specific district priorities
  • Score after each demo while impressions are fresh
  • Compare final scores across all shortlisted vendors before making a decision

The scorecard.

Score each vendor 0 to 5 on every sub-criterion below. Totals calculate automatically. Print or save as PDF when you're done - your entries are not sent anywhere.

Sub-criterion Vendor A Vendor B Vendor C
Functionality (25 pts)
Gradebook flexibility
Attendance and reporting
Family portal quality
Scheduling and course management
State/accreditation reporting automation
Usability (25 pts)
Teacher workflow speed
Administrator dashboard clarity
Family portal simplicity
Mobile experience
Training and onboarding requirements
Implementation (20 pts)
Implementation timeline
Data migration approach
Training and change management
Go-live support
Technical fit (15 pts)
SIS to LMS integration
Single sign‑on and rostering
Security certifications
Data export and reporting APIs
Hosting and uptime guarantees
Vendor viability (15 pts)
Years in market
Customer retention rate
Financial stability
Product roadmap transparency
Reference quality
Total (out of 100) 0 0 0

Common questions, answered directly.

Functionality (does it do what we need), usability (will people use it), implementation (can we get it running), technical fit (does it work with what we have), and vendor viability (will they still be here in five years). Each category has five sub-criteria scored 0 to 5, for 25 points per category and 100 total.

Five sub-criteria: gradebook flexibility, attendance and reporting, family portal quality, scheduling and course management, and state or accreditation reporting automation. Score each 0 to 5 where 0 is absent, 3 is functional, and 5 is exceptional. Prioritize actual demonstrated capability over feature checklists.

Five sub-criteria: teacher workflow speed, administrator dashboard clarity, family portal simplicity, mobile experience, and training and onboarding requirements. Have actual teachers score usability, not just administrators. Teacher UX predicts long-term adoption.

This is a category where modern platforms like Alma tend to separate clearly from legacy ones on scorecards - teachers typically reach proficiency in days rather than weeks, which shows up directly in the training and onboarding sub-score.

Four sub-criteria: implementation timeline, data migration approach, training and change management, and go-live support. Weight this category heavily if you're switching from an existing SIS - implementation quality is where most SIS transitions succeed or fail.

Five sub-criteria: SIS to LMS integration, single sign‑on and rostering, security certifications, data export and reporting APIs, and hosting and uptime guarantees. Include your IT director's assessment as the primary voice on this category.

Five sub-criteria: years in market, customer retention rate, financial stability, product roadmap transparency, and reference quality. The SIS you buy in 2026 needs to still be a viable platform in 2036. Vendor stability matters more than most committees recognize.

A vendor scoring below 60 total should be eliminated. A vendor scoring 60 to 74 has serious gaps that should be discussed and weighed against price. A vendor scoring 75 to 89 is a solid option. A vendor scoring 90 or above is an exceptional fit worth prioritizing. Never buy an SIS solely on lowest price if it means scoring below 75.

Districts consistently score Alma highest on usability and implementation, the two categories where legacy platforms lose the most points. Functionality and technical fit score competitively because state reporting automation and modern API-based integrations are built in rather than added later. Ask Alma for a completed self-assessment against this exact scorecard, then verify it independently with reference districts.

Ready to see how Alma stacks up?

Get straight answers to the questions this guide raises. Schedule a walkthrough with Alma.

Schedule a Demo

Related guides

SIS Demo Questions
How to Write an SIS RFP
SIS Vendor Red Flags