Skip to content

Compare advisor candidates on criteria you weight yourself

A transparent weighted comparison that runs entirely in your browser, keeps your notes private, and refuses to declare a winner on your behalf.

Candidates
Up to three, side by side
Weighting
Set by you, per criterion
Data handling
Nothing stored, nothing transmitted
Output
Arithmetic, not a recommendation

Page thesis

Selection decisions degrade when three similar conversations are compressed into a single impression. A scorecard does one narrow, useful thing: it forces the criteria to be named and weighted before the candidates are rated, so that the comparison reflects the mandate rather than the order of the meetings. It does not know which advisor is better, and any tool that claims to does not know either.

Comparison scorecard

Weight the criteria, then rate each candidate against them

Set a weight for every criterion before rating anyone, then score each candidate from zero to five. The arithmetic is shown openly. Nothing is stored on your device and nothing is sent anywhere.

Nothing saved, nothing transmitted
Weighted comparison of up to three advisor candidates
CriterionWeightCandidate 1Candidate 2Candidate 3
Micro-market proofSpecific knowledge of the geography this property sits in.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Property-type fluencyWorking experience with this form of property and its documents.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Pricing methodA described method, a comparable set and a revision trigger.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Confidentiality mechanismHow discretion is actually operated, not promised.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Showing qualificationWhat is verified before anyone enters the property.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Production and distributionWho produces the material and where it goes, in order.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Negotiation processHow offers are handled, including the difficult cases.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Conflict and referral handlingProcedure for dual-side situations and disclosed referrals.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Reporting disciplineWhat you receive, how often, and what triggers a call.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Fees and documentsClarity on term, holdover, what is covered and the failure case.0 weighted0 weighted0 weighted
Weighted totalof 100000

This scorecard makes no recommendation and names no winner. Every rating is your own judgement, weighted by your own priorities, and a small gap between two columns should be read as the evidence failing to separate them. Notes and ratings live only in this open page: they are never written to device storage and never transmitted.

Section 01

How the scorecard works

Ten criteria are supplied, drawn from the selection guide. Each carries a weight you control, and each candidate receives a rating on each criterion. The tool multiplies rating by weight, totals the result and shows the arithmetic openly so you can see exactly why one column is higher than another.

Nothing is hidden inside a formula you cannot inspect. If the result surprises you, the usual explanation is that a criterion you care about deeply is carrying a low weight, which is itself a useful thing to discover before signing anything.

Section 02

Weight the criteria before you rate anyone

Set the weights while thinking about your mandate, not about the candidates. A relocating seller with a fixed date should weight reporting discipline and process reliability heavily. An owner of a rare property should weight micro-market proof, confidentiality mechanism and negotiation process.

Weighting after the ratings are in produces a rationalisation rather than a decision. If you find yourself adjusting weights to change the outcome, stop and ask whether a criterion is missing from the list entirely.

Section 03

Notes belong beside the ratings

Each candidate column has a private notes field for the specific thing they said. A rating without a note becomes meaningless within about a week, when the reason for the number has faded and only the number remains.

Notes stay in the browser tab. They are not written to storage, not sent anywhere, and they disappear when you reset or close the page, which is deliberate: interview notes about named individuals should not accumulate on a website.

Section 04

Reading the result honestly

Small gaps mean nothing. If two candidates finish close together, the scorecard has told you the truthful thing — that the evidence does not separate them — and the decision should turn on the tie-breakers in the selection guide rather than on a marginal total.

A large gap is worth investigating rather than obeying. Look at which criteria produced it, and check that those criteria are the ones your mandate actually depends on.

Section 05

What this tool cannot do

It cannot verify anything a candidate told you, it holds no data about any advisor, and it has no view about the Edmonton market. Every number in it originates with you.

It also cannot capture the two things that most often decide a file: whether the person will tell you an unwelcome truth, and whether they will still be attentive in week seven. Those belong in your notes, not in a score.

This scorecard produces no recommendation, ranking or endorsement of any licensee or brokerage.

Section 06

After scoring

Print the completed comparison, then read the representation agreement from your leading candidate before the meeting at which you are expected to sign it. Compare the term, the holdover provision and the failure case against what was said in the interview.

Where the written document and the spoken answer disagree, the document governs, and the discrepancy is information about the candidate.

Questions asked here

Practical answers for this geography

Is my scoring saved?
No. Ratings, weights and notes exist only in the open page. Nothing is written to device storage and nothing is transmitted, so closing or resetting the page clears everything.
Does the tool recommend a candidate?
It never does. It shows a weighted total and the arithmetic behind it, and it explicitly declines to name a winner, because the inputs are your subjective ratings.
Can I change the criteria?
The ten criteria are fixed so that comparisons stay consistent, but the weights are entirely yours, including setting a weight to zero for a criterion that does not matter in your situation.

Sources

What this page is built on

Assessment data published by the City of Edmonton reflects assessed values for taxation, not market values. Market figures anywhere on this site are limited to the REALTORS® Association of Edmonton June 2026 Greater Edmonton Area report, cited with geography, category, period, source and retrieval date.

  • Paul Paiva — Agent ProfileElevate Realty Group, Real Broker

    Local market guidance and brokerage affiliation. Brokerage-maintained profile. Brokerage reference page.

    official professional profile Public brokerage profile page for the named reviewer. Linked for identity verification only; no content reproduced.

    Retrieved 2026-08-16

  • EdmontonRealEstatePro.caElevate Realty Group, Real Broker

    Live listing search for the Edmonton area. Live listing data. Listing search gateway — all live inventory is hosted there.

    licensed-listing gateway Brokerage IDX/listing search operated under the operator's own MLS® data licence. This atlas holds no listing data and links out only; no counts, prices or listings are copied.

    Retrieved 2026-08-16

  • Market StatisticsREALTORS® Association of Edmonton

    Archive of monthly and annual market statistics. Monthly release cadence. Association statistics hub.

    public market report Publicly accessible association statistics hub. Linked for currency; no figures are taken from it beyond the cited June 2026 release.

    Retrieved 2026-08-16

Record last reviewed 2026-08-17