A price comparison begins by making the quotations comparable
Two manufacturers can appear to quote the same product while pricing different scopes. One may include materials and pattern development; another may assume customer-supplied fabric and approved technical files. One price may be EXW; another may include delivery. Putting the unit prices next to each other does not create comparability.
Lock the comparison basis
Same product / revision.
Same core drawings and specification.
Same material and component assumptions, or clearly labelled alternatives.
Same quantity, colour and size architecture.
Same quality and packaging requirements.
Same requested development and sampling scope.
If a supplier proposes a different solution, preserve it as a scenario rather than silently comparing it as if it were the same product.
Separate unit cost from fixed and development cost
Normalise the material assumption
For each quote, record the material supplier/article or an equivalent specification: composition, weight or thickness, colour, finish and substitution status. If two factories priced different fabrics or leathers, you may still have useful alternatives — but you do not have a pure manufacturer-price comparison.
Normalise MOQ and minimum cash exposure
Record whether the minimum applies per order, style, colour, size run, material, component or tool. Then calculate the actual minimum cash order.
Lower unit price does not automatically mean lower launch exposure.
A €39 unit price at a 300-unit minimum commits €11,700; a €45 price at 100 units commits €4,500. Which route is stronger depends on demand, margin and the value of preserving cash.
Normalise the commercial term
An EXW price and a delivered price are not equivalent. Identify the Incoterm or delivery basis and who carries export clearance, collection, freight, insurance, import duty, customs handling and final delivery. Do not add a vague “shipping estimate” and call the result landed cost.
Normalise development scope and timing
Ask what is included before production: pattern, grading, programming, product engineering, first sample, fit sample, size set, colour sample and pre-production sample. Then decompose time into development, materials, samples, approvals, bulk, QC and delivery.
A supplier that appears more expensive may actually be quoting a materially larger service perimeter.
Compare payment terms as a financing structure
Record development payment, tooling deposit, production deposit, balance timing and any credit terms. Two identical total prices can create different peak working-capital requirements when the payment schedule changes.
Add the cost of correction and execution risk
Some of the largest manufacturing costs are not on the first quote: extra sample rounds, remakes, rejects, air freight, late delivery, markdowns, returns and management time. They cannot be predicted perfectly, but supplier behaviour provides evidence.
Quality of the first sample.
Clarity of technical questions.
Transparency about assumptions and subcontracting.
Response to corrections.
Documentation and version control.
Evidence of comparable production.
Use gates before scores
Weighted scorecards can organise evidence but can also hide a critical failure. Technical capability, acceptable quality, commercial viability, compliance where relevant and feasible capacity should act as gates. Only suppliers that pass the gate should be compared on softer trade-offs.
Write why the preferred supplier is preferred.
“Supplier A costs €4.20 more but requires half the MOQ, includes development and reached the approved sample in fewer rounds” is a decision rationale. “Supplier A scored 87/100” is not.
Quote comparison template
FAQ
Should every manufacturer receive the same technical pack?
For a comparable RFQ, suppliers should receive the same controlled core requirement. Supplier-specific development alternatives can then be recorded separately.
Is the cheapest quote usually wrong?
No. It may be the best route. Price becomes meaningful only after scope, minimums, materials, service and terms are normalised.
How many quotes should I compare?
Enough to create credible alternatives. A small qualified shortlist generally produces stronger evidence than a large set of shallow, incomparable prices.
What should I do with missing information?
Mark the field as missing and clarify it. Do not invent a value merely to complete the spreadsheet.