Netify SD-WAN Scoring Model (2026.1)
Each SD-WAN vendor and managed service provider is scored from 0 to 10 across four pillars. The final score is a weighted average. Evidence quality is applied as a multiplier before weighting so unverified vendor claims do not inflate the score.
Pillars and weights
| Pillar | Weight | What is measured |
|---|---|---|
| Technology capability | 30% | Native SD-WAN feature depth covering overlay, underlay, application-aware routing, cloud on-ramps and SASE integration. |
| Service delivery | 30% | Managed, co-managed and self-managed delivery options, regional support coverage, portal and observability quality. |
| Commercial fit | 20% | Contract flexibility, licensing transparency, regional billing, lifecycle services and procurement clarity. |
| Evidence quality | 20% | Named customer references, case study depth, sector relevance, independent validation. |
Technology capability rubric
| Band | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Documented native capability across SD-WAN, SSE, ZTNA, multi-cloud on-ramps; published architecture; large-scale deployments. |
| 7-8 | Strong SD-WAN with credible SASE or security path; some integrations require partner stacks. |
| 5-6 | Solid SD-WAN, weaker SASE or limited cloud on-ramp. |
| 3-4 | Partial feature set or heavy reliance on third-party components. |
| 0-2 | Marketing claims with little verifiable capability. |
Service delivery rubric
| Band | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Mature managed and co-managed models, UK and global support, named escalation, transparent SLAs, strong portal and API. |
| 7-8 | Managed service via partners or carrier with documented operating model and SLAs. |
| 5-6 | Limited managed footprint or partner-only delivery without consistent SLAs. |
| 3-4 | Self-managed only, weak portal, limited observability. |
| 0-2 | No clear support model. |
Commercial fit rubric
| Band | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Published licensing model, flexible term lengths, transparent uplift terms, lifecycle and refresh path defined. |
| 7-8 | Standard enterprise terms with clear options for managed wrap. |
| 5-6 | Rigid terms or unclear regional billing. |
| 3-4 | Long lock-ins, unclear uplift, opaque pricing. |
| 0-2 | No published commercial information. |
Evidence quality rubric
| Band | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 9-10 | Multiple named, sector-relevant customer cases with measurable outcomes. |
| 7-8 | Several named references with adequate detail. |
| 5-6 | Limited named references or shallow case studies. |
| 3-4 | Anonymous references only. |
| 0-2 | No verifiable evidence. |
Sector adjustments
Pillar weights can be uplifted for buyers in specific sectors where particular dimensions matter more.
- Healthcare: uplift evidence quality and service delivery. Clinical risk and compliance lift the weight of named references and managed support.
- Retail and hospitality: uplift technology capability. Deployment velocity, point-of-sale uptime and cellular failover favour native feature depth.
- Financial services: uplift service delivery and commercial fit. Audit, SLAs and contractual clarity weigh more heavily.
- Public sector: uplift service delivery and evidence quality. Procurement frameworks and sector-specific references take priority.
- Manufacturing and logistics: uplift technology capability. Global cloud on-ramps and underlay diversity dominate.
Service model adjustments
- Direct vendor: commercial fit and technology capability dominate. The buyer absorbs operating workload.
- Managed service provider: service delivery and evidence quality dominate. Operating model and named MSP delivery references decide the score.
- Co-managed: service delivery dominates. Boundary, escalation and shared portal quality decide whether the model works in practice.
Evidence multiplier
Pillar scores are multiplied by an evidence band before weighting:
- Independently verified: 1.0
- Named customer reference: 0.95
- Documented but anonymised: 0.85
- Vendor claim only: 0.7
Red flags
The scoring model treats the following as explicit red flags during evaluation:
- Vague SLA wording with no service credits.
- No named support model or escalation path.
- Unclear underlay ownership for international sites.
- No migration plan from incumbent WAN.
- Limited portal visibility for in-flight tickets.
- Weak cloud connectivity evidence for stated regions.
- Unclear SASE integration boundary between vendor and partner.
- No sector references at the buyer scale.
- No contract flexibility on term or scope.
- No evidence of large-scale deployment.