A marketing automation RFP template is a prioritized criteria grid, organized by functional family, that lets you put multiple vendors in head-to-head competition on the same basis — instead of comparing one set of sales decks against another. Ours covers 299 requirements across 18 categories. It’s free, Excel format, and ready to send to your shortlisted vendors.
Any organization that puts its marketing automation platform back out to bid hits the same wall: how do you rigorously compare several solutions across twenty topics and three hundred features, without getting steamrolled by the demos? Online comparators (Gartner, G2) give you direction, never the detail you need to sign. Vendors, for their part, lead with what they do — not what they don’t.
This template was built to fill that gap. It gives you the structure, the prioritization, and the scoring grid. Your vendors only have to answer. You only have to score.
The kit is free: Excel template (299 criteria) + Word context brief.
Where this grid comes from
This grid draws on 15 years of hands-on marketing automation expertise — deployments, redesigns, migrations, RFPs from both the client side and the vendor side. It’s our internal reference, continuously enriched across engagements, that we share with the organizations we support to frame their vendor selection.
An earlier version covered 181 requirements across 12 categories. We’ve since expanded it with the capabilities that have become non-negotiable: buying group, social publishing, native integrations, advanced CRM sync, AI and agents. Current version: 299 requirements, 18 categories.
What’s in the template
The Excel file has four tabs.
Tab 1 — Instructions. A recap of the 7-value scoring scale, the priority weighting, and the 4-step evaluation method. Read this first.
Tab 2 — Summary. Completeness and score calculated automatically, category by category, from your answers in the Full grid tab. Point scale and priority weighting are editable at the bottom.
Tab 3 — Full grid. One row per criterion. Columns the vendor fills in:
- Response — 7-value dropdown (see below)
- Comment — free text, the vendor elaborates
- Proof (doc) and Proof (video / screenshot) — link to the documentation or demo supporting the answer
The columns Category · Function · Need · Priority are pre-filled. Priority-based color coding is automatic. Duplicate the file once per vendor on your shortlist.
Tab 4 — Paminga prefilled. The same criteria, each with a pre-written Merlin/Leonard comment. A working baseline to customize for your shortlist.
Included in the download: the context brief. A Word document to fill in on your side — organization, current stack, target state, integrations, security expectations. The template structures the comparison; the brief gives vendors the context they need to answer accurately. Together, they make a complete RFP package.
The scoring scale: 7 values, one key rule
Most RFP grids in circulation settle for a “Yes / No” binary, sometimes enriched with a “Partly.” That’s not enough. A vendor can answer “Yes” and then require a paid module, a custom development, or a tier upgrade. You end up buying theoretical coverage, not real coverage.
Our template enforces a 7-value scale:
- Native — included at no extra cost — the capability ships with the platform in the proposed perimeter
- Paid module / option — the capability exists, but requires an additional license, a higher pricing tier, or an add-on
- Available via development — the platform doesn’t do the work, but exposes the necessary APIs or hooks
- On roadmap — vendor-announced with a documented horizon (check the contractual commitment)
- Not covered — the capability doesn’t exist and isn’t planned
- Partial — native but limited — the capability exists natively but with material restrictions (volume, types, depth)
- To verify / Not provided — the vendor couldn’t answer, or the answer needs a verification demo
Key rule: a “Yes” is worth nothing until it’s qualified. The distinction native included vs paid module is what drives real total cost of ownership — and it’s exactly what vendor demos tend to obscure.
How to weight priorities
Each requirement carries a priority — set before you look at vendors (otherwise you rewrite the need to fit the offer, and lose the value of structured evaluation).
Three levels:
- Must have — non-negotiable. A vendor that misses a Must have with “Not covered” leaves the shortlist, period.
- Should have — important. Score it, weight it, count it.
- Nice to have — bonus. Carries little weight in the final decision, but can break a tie between two close candidates.
Recommended weighting: Must = 3 · Should = 2 · Nice = 0.5. You get a total score per vendor that reflects your real priorities, not the theoretical breadth of each platform.
The 18 categories covered
| # | Category | What you’re evaluating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | General & platform | UX, support, CSM, training, documentation, SLA |
| 2 | Compliance, security & contractual | GDPR, hosting, SOC 2 / ISO 27001, consent management, DPA |
| 3 | Tracking & Data Capture | Web tracking, ad blockers, UTM, forms, pre-fill |
| 4 | Data Management & Governance | Fields, deduplication, quality, CRM sync (volume, latency) |
| 5 | Segmentation, Scoring & Personalization | Smart lists, tokens, dynamic content, behavioral + ICP scoring |
| 6 | Marketing Activation – Assets | Email, landing pages, forms, CTAs, brand kit |
| 7 | Marketing Activation – Orchestration | Journey builder, A/B testing, SMS, WhatsApp, push |
| 8 | Sales Activation | CRM-embedded Sales Insight, real-time alerts, Slack, meeting scheduling |
| 9 | Automation & Lead Management | Workflows, triggers, lead lifecycle, SLA, technical debt management |
| 10 | Reporting & Performance | Native reports, custom dashboards, multi-touch attribution, BI |
| 11 | Technical & Infra | DKIM/DMARC/SPF, SSO, granular permissions, domain branding |
| 12 | Buying Group Management | Account-based, buying signals, buying committee, intent data |
| 13 | Social Publishing | Scheduling, editorial calendar, social attribution |
| 14 | Ads Integrations | Ad audience sync, retargeting, attribution |
| 15.1 | Events (in-person & field) | Trade shows, field events: registration, badges, lead capture, CRM sync |
| 15.2 | Webinars (virtual) | Native webinar platform, registration sync, post-event |
| 16 | Native integrations (catalog) | Available connectors, depth, maintenance |
| 17 | CRM sync (Salesforce) | Account / Opportunity write-back, custom objects, mapping |
| 18 | AI & Agents | Predictive scoring, content generation, conversational agents |
Each category breaks down into 4 to 65 criteria depending on density. Categories §12, §13, §14, §17, §18 have moved the most over the past 18 months — a vendor that hasn’t shipped meaningfully there since 2024 deserves a direct question in the demo.
How to use it: 4-step workflow
1. Adapt (half a day). Walk through the 299 criteria. Cut the ones that don’t apply to your context (e.g., no ABM motion → drop §12). Reset the priority level (Must have / Should have / Nice to have) to your actual needs — the default prioritization is a starting baseline, not gospel; what’s a Must for an industrial player isn’t necessarily one for a SaaS vendor. Tighten down to 150 to 200 lines: an RFP that nobody fills in is worth nothing.
2. Send (1-week response window). Duplicate the template, one file per shortlisted vendor. Ask for the written response before the demo, not after. A demo trains a sales rep to dodge the hard questions; an RFP filled out beforehand puts all of them on the table.
3. Score (half a day per vendor). Cross-check the answers. Mark anything vague as “To verify.” Weight the scores (Must = 3, Should = 2, Nice = 0.5). You get a quantified, board-defensible ranking.
4. Decide. The final score is a starting point, not a verdict. At this stage, two variables make the difference in practice: real TCO (add-ons, tiers, hidden licenses) and CRM sync depth (read-only vs native write-back on Account and Opportunity). Decide on those two, not on theoretical catalog breadth.
Why this template beats a Magic Quadrant or a G2 review
Gartner’s Magic Quadrant and G2 reviews are useful for building a shortlist: they screen out unstable or marginal vendors. They aren’t enough to choose between two serious candidates. A Magic Quadrant reasons in quadrants; a MAP decision is won or lost on 50 specific features. A G2 review reflects someone else’s setup; you’re buying the platform for five years, not to validate their experience.
The only way to choose without regret is to put the vendors against your specific requirements, in the order you set, with a scoring scale that prevents unqualified “yeses.” That’s exactly what this template produces.
FAQ
Want a hand framing your RFP?
Running this evaluation in-house is entirely possible — that’s exactly what the template is for. If you want to move faster, or you’ve reached a tight shortlist and want an external view to challenge vendor answers, we step in at three moments: framing the grid against your business priorities, challenging vendor responses (beyond the marketing), and securing migration if you switch platforms.
For organizations that select Paminga, Merlin/Leonard gives its French clients a 35% discount on the platform in 2026 — an advantage reserved for going through M/L.
