SD-WAN Scoring Model 2026.1 - Netify Vendor Capability Model

Netify SD-WAN Scoring Model 2026.1, Netify, available at https://www.netify.co.uk/sd-wan/scoring-model/

Field	Value
Methodology version	sdwan-vendor-filter-2026.1
Scoring model version	sdwan-scoring-model-2026.1
Capability taxonomy version	sdwan-capability-taxonomy-2026.1
Filter schema version	sdwan-vendor-filter-schema-2026.1
Last reviewed	2026-05-20
Canonical URL	/sd-wan/scoring-model/
Machine-readable JSON	https://www.netify.co.uk/wp-json/netify/v1/sd-wan/scoring-model
Publisher	Netify, https://www.netify.co.uk/
Licence	Public methodology. Reuse permitted with attribution to Netify and the canonical URL.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Pillar scores are multiplied by an evidence band before weighting:

The scoring model treats the following as explicit red flags during evaluation: