Not every financial institution will conduct a formal RFP for calculator solutions — the investment level and operational complexity often don't require it. But for institutions that need to document vendor selection through a procurement process, or that want the discipline of a structured evaluation, a consistent framework ensures that the right criteria are evaluated consistently across all vendors under consideration.

This guide provides a practical evaluation framework: the categories to cover in any structured calculator vendor selection, the questions worth asking in each category, and guidance on evaluating responses that distinguish genuinely strong programs from polished sales pitches. Institutions running a formal RFP can adapt these questions into their own procurement language.

Evaluation Structure: Five Requirement Categories

A financial calculator evaluation should address five distinct categories of requirements. Some of these will be mandatory pass/fail criteria; others will be weighted evaluation factors. The distinction matters — a vendor that fails a mandatory accessibility requirement should not remain in consideration regardless of how strong their tools are in other respects.

Category 1: Tool Catalog and Calculation Quality

Key Questions to Ask

• What is the complete catalog of calculator tools available, organized by category?
• For each tool, what inputs does it accept and what outputs does it produce?
• What calculation methodology is used for key tools, and how is that methodology documented?
• What regulatory parameters does each tool reference (FHA MIP, VA funding fee, IRS limits, conforming loan limits, etc.), and what process is used to update them when they change?
• Can the vendor provide results for specific test scenarios your institution specifies — a mortgage payment with PITI, an affordability calculation, a refinance break-even, a debt consolidation savings estimate — so you can verify accuracy against your own expected outputs?

Evaluation Guidance

Evaluate tool catalog breadth against your institution's product line — not just whether a tool type exists, but whether it includes the full set of inputs your borrowers need. Evaluate calculation methodology responses for specificity: a vendor that describes their calculation approach in detail is more credible than one that asserts accuracy without documentation. Test the specific scenarios you specify and verify the results.

Category 2: Accessibility and Regulatory Compliance

Key Questions to Ask

• Can the vendor provide current WCAG 2.2 Level AA accessibility documentation (VPAT or ACR) for all calculator tools under consideration?
• What testing methodology was used to produce that documentation — automated tools only, or automated plus manual keyboard and screen reader testing?
• What is the vendor's process for maintaining WCAG 2.2 compliance as standards evolve? How frequently are tools tested, and what is the typical timeframe from issue identification to remediation deployment?
• How does the vendor contract allocate accessibility compliance responsibility, and what does the vendor commit to if deployed tools are found not to meet WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards?

Evaluation Guidance

Treat accessibility compliance as mandatory, not a weighted factor. A vendor that cannot produce WCAG 2.2 documentation or whose documentation reveals significant gaps should not proceed to the next evaluation stage. Have documentation reviewed by an accessibility professional rather than relying solely on vendor self-representation. The ADA exposure from non-compliant tools is not offset by strong performance on other dimensions.

Category 3: Technical Implementation

Key Questions to Ask

• How are calculator tools embedded into the institution's website? What does the embed code look like?
• What action is required of the institution's technical team when the vendor deploys updates? Is deployment automatic or does it require IT effort per update?
• How does the embed handle automatic height adjustment as calculator content changes?
• Has the embed been tested with the institution's specific CMS (Drupal, WordPress, Sitecore, Kentico, custom) and text format configuration?
• What are the performance benchmarks for calculator loading — time to first interaction, impact on Core Web Vitals, and whether loading is asynchronous and non-blocking?
• On which specific mobile devices and browsers has the vendor tested the calculator tools?

Evaluation Guidance

Request a test embed in a staging environment before finalizing vendor selection. Performance benchmarks provided by vendors will reflect best-case scenarios; a real embed in your environment will reveal actual impact. Pay particular attention to what IT action is required when the vendor deploys updates — this ongoing obligation is easy to underweight at evaluation time and expensive to manage over a multi-year contract.

Category 4: Lead Capture and Analytics

Key Questions to Ask

• What email results functionality is available? What data is captured alongside the user's email address?
• How is captured lead data delivered to the institution — email notification, CRM integration, vendor dashboard, or a combination?
• Can the institution configure the CTA text and destination URL shown to users adjacent to the calculator result?
• Can the institution customize the email template delivered to users who submit their email?
• What analytics events does the calculator fire to third-party platforms (Google Analytics 4, Adobe Analytics)? At which user actions, and what data is included in each event?
• Does the vendor provide pre-built analytics dashboards or report templates the institution can use?

Evaluation Guidance

Evaluate whether the lead capture mechanism is genuinely useful for your follow-up workflow. Lead data delivered only through a vendor dashboard is significantly less useful than data delivered directly to your CRM or via structured email notification. Confirm that the institution owns the captured data and can export it in a standard format.

Category 5: Vendor Qualifications and Contract Terms

Key Questions to Ask

• How many financial institution clients currently use the vendor's calculator program?
• How many years has the vendor been in market serving financial institutions?
• Can the vendor provide three client references from institutions of comparable size and asset class?
• What is the vendor's financial stability, and is documentation available to support a multi-year contract commitment?
• What is the minimum contract term, and what notice is required for non-renewal?
• Under what conditions may the institution exit the contract without penalty?
• Who owns the lead data captured through the vendor's tools, and what are the institution's export rights at contract end?
• What happens to the institution's calculator implementation if the vendor discontinues the program or is acquired?

Evaluation Guidance

Follow up with the provided references before finalizing the selection. The most informative reference conversations focus on operational experience rather than sales satisfaction: How responsive is the vendor to issues? Has tool quality improved or declined over time? Has accessibility compliance been maintained without the institution needing to push for it? Would you select this vendor again?

Evaluation Scoring Framework

Category	Weight and Criteria
Tool catalog completeness	15% — breadth of tools relative to institution's product line; completeness of inputs per tool
Calculation accuracy	15% — accuracy of test scenario results; quality of methodology documentation
Accessibility compliance	20% — mandatory pass/fail on WCAG 2.2 documentation; process quality for ongoing maintenance
Technical implementation	15% — update deployment architecture; CMS compatibility; performance; mobile testing
Lead capture and analytics	15% — email results capability and data richness; analytics integration; institutional control
Vendor qualifications	10% — client base size and composition; years in market; reference quality
Contract terms	10% — exit provisions; data ownership; liability allocation