Quality · 25%
Review inspection methods, defect definitions, sample consistency, and relevant test evidence.
Sourcing tool · decision framework
Compare the way a factory actually works
Rate each candidate from 1 to 10 across five factors. The weighted index helps structure discussion; it does not certify a supplier or replace order-specific checks.
Interactive scorecard
Set your candidate ratings
Use the same evidence and scoring interpretation for every factory you compare. The result is calculated in your browser and is not saved.
Weighted index
1 to 10 ratings, multiplied by each factor weight
Inspection plan, defect criteria, sample consistency, and relevant evidence.
Fit between order minimums, style or colorway needs, and available working capital.
Realistic sample and bulk planning with material readiness considered.
Itemized quote, clear Incoterms, and explicit scope for logistics.
Technical review, traceability records, communication, and agreed checkpoints.
Index = Σ (rating × weight %) × 10. Compare candidates using the same evidence.
How to apply the weights
Score evidence that matters to the order
MOQ · 20%
Compare the factory minimum with your style, colorway, and available working capital.
Velocity · 20%
Assess sample and bulk planning against material readiness and the order schedule.
Commercials · 20%
Look for itemized pricing and clear Incoterms. Separate product price from freight and import costs.
Governance · 15%
Check technical review, traceability records, communication, and production oversight.
For context, planning references are a managed production reference of 10–15 days for sample production plus 3–5 days for courier, and 15–20 days for bulk after formal PP sign-off. These are planning references, not a guarantee for every style.
Reading the result
A useful comparison starts with common evidence
Ask each candidate the same questions and attach supporting evidence to the rating. A high number without a matching sample, inspection record, or written commercial scope should not be treated as proof.
MOQ and quote comparisons need context such as GSM, yarn, trims, wash, order quantity, and any mill minimum or surcharge. Import charges vary by product and destination; confirm them for the transaction.
Use the result to identify where follow-up is needed. Confirm facility scope, order timing, quantity, price, and payment terms in the purchase-order documents.
Read the Bangladesh and India comparisonFrequently Asked Questions
How accurate is this comparison scorecard when evaluating potential vendors?
This tool normalizes operational variables into a standardized B2B decision matrix. While it measures structural risk and vendor capability, formal commercial agreements require a technical review of your tech pack, bill of materials (BOM), and points of measure (POM).
Why is quality control weighted highest at 25% in the evaluation model?
Off-spec garment dimensions, skipped stitches, or color bleeding can invalidate an entire production run. Evaluating suppliers based on verified inspection thresholds—such as ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 Level II with an AQL 2.5 acceptance threshold—prevents costly consumer returns and brand equity erosion.
How does Fenalt’s fully managed model compare to sourcing directly from a factory?
Direct factory sourcing requires your team to manage tech pack translation, inline quality inspections, export logistics, and customs documentation independently. Fenalt provides an end-to-end managed solution, handling technical execution, strict AQL 2.5 quality control, and logistics under standardized commercial terms.
What dimensional tolerances are assumed in standard garment evaluation?
Standard commercial apparel industry tolerances apply across all points of measure (POM) as defined in your finalized tech pack. Deviations exceeding defined allowances are flagged during AQL 2.5 pre-shipment inspections.
Next step
Turn the score into a sourcing brief
Share the product, candidate criteria, and evidence you want reviewed.
Discuss manufacturer options