vs. Reference checks
Reference checks are evidence, not infrastructure. They confirm the last engagement happened. They do not give you a named person to email when this one goes sideways. They also do not survive staff turnover or an acquisition.
Compared
Prevouched is not the only way. It's the cheapest one that survives a real engagement.
A buyer choosing an offshore team has four practical options. Here is how they actually compare on the things that determine whether the engagement is repeatable or a one-time gamble.
Vetting is repeatable and published
- Prevouched
- ●
- Reference checks
- –
- Marketplaces
- ◐
- In-house RFP
- –
Vetting is revocable after admission
- Prevouched
- ●
- Reference checks
- –
- Marketplaces
- –
- In-house RFP
- –
Named US accountability contact
- Prevouched
- ●
- Reference checks
- –
- Marketplaces
- –
- In-house RFP
- ◐
Response SLA in writing
- Prevouched
- ●
- Reference checks
- –
- Marketplaces
- –
- In-house RFP
- ◐
Escalation procedure pre-agreed
- Prevouched
- ●
- Reference checks
- –
- Marketplaces
- –
- In-house RFP
- –
Money flow stays clean (no markup)
- Prevouched
- ●
- Reference checks
- ●
- Marketplaces
- –
- In-house RFP
- ●
Time to a credible shortlist
- Prevouched
- Same day (directory)
- Reference checks
- Weeks
- Marketplaces
- Hours (unvetted)
- In-house RFP
- Months
Cost predictability
- Prevouched
- High
- Reference checks
- High
- Marketplaces
- Low
- In-house RFP
- Medium
● included ◐ partial / depends – not included
vs. Marketplaces (Clutch, Upwork-style)
Marketplaces optimize for liquidity. Admission criteria do the opposite. A vendor with a review can be anyone. A vendor with a Prevouched mark passed a rubric and can lose it. Marketplaces also charge the buyer or mark up the work, so the money flow gets tangled.
vs. In-house RFP
A well-run in-house RFP is the strongest alternative. It is also the slowest. Most buyers under $50M in revenue do not have the staff to run one well. Prevouched gives them the output of an RFP without the months.