Free browser-only tool
Two or three anonymous proposals, nine fixed questions, and provider-specific follow-ups for anything that needs a clearer written answer.
Step 1
Keep the documents beside you. Price stays exactly as typed and is never converted or compared.
Three is the cap. The anonymous labels stay Proposal A, B, and C.
Step 2
Choose the clearest accurate state for each document. Answer one cell and the comparison below starts filling in — you do not have to finish before it is worth reading.
“Not addressed” and “I cannot tell” are different findings and produce different questions. One says the document is silent; the other says it spoke and you still could not tell.
Category 1 of 9
When this is finished and paid for, what do I own and what accounts do I hold?
The document names an owner for the domain registration, hosting account, site files and source, analytics property, and licensed content. “You own your website” does not name those five things.
Category 2 of 9
If I stop working with them, what do I receive and what stops working?
The document says what you receive on exit, in what format, within how many days, and at what cost, if any.
Category 3 of 9
Do they say what is wrong now, and how they know?
The document states what the provider believes is failing now and what they inspected to reach that conclusion: a page, a number, or a specific behavior.
Category 4 of 9
What is supposed to change, and what is explicitly outside the work?
The document states an outcome you could check yourself and names at least one thing the work will not fix. Both halves are present.
Category 5 of 9
What is actually being built, countably?
The document gives countable deliverables: pages, templates, revision rounds, and named integrations. Any unfixed number says what it depends on.
Category 6 of 9
Who handles each piece: the provider or me?
Copy, images, legal or licensing details, and sign-off are each assigned to a named side. “Collaboratively” does not assign them.
Category 7 of 9
How will we both know the work is finished and working?
The document names a check that runs before handover and who runs it. “Thorough QA” does not name a check.
Category 8 of 9
What will I pay, over what period, and to whom?
The document gives the one-time cost, each recurring cost with its frequency and coverage, and anything billed separately or by a third party.
Category 9 of 9
When does it happen, and what happens when something changes?
The document gives a start and handover date, or a dependency for each, plus who prices a change and whether you approve it in writing first.
Answer any one cell above and the comparison appears here. Partial work is allowed.
The July 2026 website proposal scorecard is the reference behind this tool. That article explains why proposal language needs inspection. This page has a narrower job: put two or three documents on the same nine questions and turn every unresolved cell into something you can ask in writing.
There is no weighted rubric here. A combined number would turn a collection of buyer judgments into false precision. The useful artifact is the comparison grid, the stop-and-clarify conditions, and the provider-specific question list.
“Inspectable” has a mechanical meaning.
A point is stated in writing when you can identify a sentence and another reader would get the same answer from it. If you have to infer, translate, or remember a sales call, mark the weaker state. That is not an accusation. It is a reason to ask.
Can you identify who holds the domain registration, hosting account, site files and source, analytics property, and licensed content? “You own your website” does not assign those five things.
Does the document say what you receive if the relationship ends, in what format, within how many days, and at what cost? A pleasant promise about an “easy transition” is not a handover process.
Does the provider state what they believe is failing now and what they inspected to reach that conclusion? A description of the provider’s process is not a diagnosis of your situation.
Does the proposal name an outcome you could inspect later and something the project explicitly will not fix? Both halves matter. An outcome without a boundary is difficult to hold anyone to.
Can you count the pages, templates, revision rounds, forms, and integrations? When a number is not fixed, does the document say what it depends on?
Are copy, images, legal or licensing details, and sign-off assigned to the provider or to you? “Collaboratively” is a working style, not an assignment.
Does the proposal name the checks that run before handover and who runs them? “Thorough QA” sounds reassuring and names no check.
Does it state the one-time cost, each recurring charge and frequency, what those charges cover, and anything invoiced separately? The tool preserves your price text. It does not parse or compare it.
An unresolved price cell asks the provider to state their own total over the first 24 months from launch, including recurring and separately invoiced costs. The tool never performs that arithmetic. If two prices are both stated clearly but use different bases, no automatic question appears; ask both providers for the same written time horizon before you compare them.
Does the document give a start and handover date, or a dependency for each? Does it say who prices a change and whether you approve it in writing before the work begins?
“Not addressed” and “I cannot tell” generate different questions. Silence asks whether something is included. Confusing language asks for a plain-language restatement.
An explicit exclusion is also different. Clear bad news may change your decision, but it is still clearer than a hidden dependency. The tool records the distinction without grading it.
These conditions are deterministic. An unreviewed row never fires one.
One condition can matter more than the rest of the document. That is why the result presents these before the table.
Two invented proposals use different price language:
$6,800, half to start and half at launch$2,400 setup + $450/mo for 24 monthsThose strings are examples of formatting, not price guidance. The tool repeats them exactly and does no arithmetic.
Suppose Proposal A states scope and timeline in writing, says ownership vaguely, and does not address exit or acceptance. Proposal B states price in writing, explicitly excludes account transfer, and describes scope and timeline vaguely. Both leave responsibilities unassigned.
The result would put ownership and exit above the rest of the grid. It would identify Proposal B’s explicit non-transfer term without calling the provider dishonest. Then it would generate separate question blocks:
Each block is written for one provider and can be copied on its own, so you send one email per provider rather than one message containing everyone else’s gaps.
The notes do not enter those questions. Notes are your private shorthand. Generated questions come only from the category and clarity state you chose.
If you only fill in two rows, make them ownership and exit. They are first for a reason: once the work is done and the money has moved, they can be among the hardest and most expensive terms to renegotiate. Everything below them matters, but it should not displace them. A two-row comparison finished today beats a nine-row one you abandon.
A gap is a question, not a verdict. A provider may have a sound answer and a weak document. Send the questions, ask for written answers by a date, and compare those answers on the same categories.
Then run it a second time. When the answers come back, review the same nine categories against what each provider committed to in writing. The second pass gives you the written record for your decision; the first tells you what to clarify. Keep or download the first record, then update the current draft—or clear it and begin again—with the answers beside you. Drafts are tab-scoped, and browser session restore may retain them until you use the visible clear control or the browser removes that session data.
Do not turn “explicitly excluded” into an automatic rejection. It may be a deal-breaker for you, but the tool does not know your constraints and does not judge the provider.
Price remains text because price bases are not safely interchangeable. If you need a common time horizon, ask every provider to calculate it in writing and state what is included. The provider owns those assumptions; this page does not invent them.
That applies even when two prices are perfectly clear. “$6,800 once” and “$2,400 then $450 a month” can both be stated in writing and still not line up, because they are quoted on different bases. Neither one is unclear, so neither generates a question—but one price basis is still missing. Ask each provider for their own total over the same period and what it includes. That puts the prices on one time basis; compare them only after scope, ownership, responsibilities, and recurring terms are equally clear.
Nothing entered in the interface is sent to RP Marketing Group. A draft may remain in tab-scoped browser storage, including through browser session restore, until you use the visible clear control or the browser removes that session data.