Decision framework
Assess each candidate on evidence, not promises.
Assign scores only after demonstrations and delivery of the requested evidence. Weighting makes candidates comparable without hiding disqualifying criteria.
-
01
Actual business coverage
Compare complete B2C/B2B journeys, edge cases and parity with the existing storefront, not only a catalogue-to-basket demo.
Evidence to request
Parity matrix, E2E scenarios and a demonstration of your critical journeys.
Weight
18%
-
02
Fit with team skills
Assess the ability to recruit, train and retain the chosen stack over several years.
Evidence to request
Staffing plan, required skills, onboarding documentation and ramp-up time.
Weight
8%
-
03
Architecture & maintainability
Review browser/BFF/ICM boundaries, modularity, embedded debt and how understandable the delivered code is for internal teams.
Evidence to request
Architecture review, flow diagrams, dependency analysis and an extension example.
Weight
14%
-
04
Security & compliance
Review sessions, secrets, dependencies, consent, personal data, patching and operational responsibilities.
Evidence to request
Threat model, dependency scan, patch policy, security headers and consent journeys.
Weight
14%
-
05
Measurable performance
Require Core Web Vitals budgets, real-user measurements and a caching strategy compatible with pricing and customer accounts.
Evidence to request
Lighthouse/WebPageTest report, CI budgets and a RUM dashboard using representative data.
Weight
10%
-
06
SEO & internationalisation
Validate canonicals, hreflang, catalogue sitemaps, metadata, structured data and URL governance.
Evidence to request
Technical crawl, sitemap samples, Schema.org validation and redirect strategy.
Weight
8%
-
07
Operability & observability
Clarify deployment, rollback, health checks, logs, alerts, RUM, scaling and incident diagnosis.
Evidence to request
Runbook, deployment pipeline, rollback demonstration and sample alerts.
Weight
10%
-
08
Customisation without divergence
Assess how themes, components, business rules and connectors are extended without blocking future updates.
Evidence to request
Extension guide, override strategy and an upgrade example with customisations.
Weight
6%
-
09
Migration path
Require a parity map, coexistence strategy, cutover criteria and SEO migration plan.
Evidence to request
Phased plan, gap inventory, coexistence strategy and go/no-go criteria.
Weight
7%
-
10
Total cost & reversibility
Include licences, hosting, build, maintenance, third-party dependencies, upgrades and the ability to change delivery partner.
Evidence to request
Three-year TCO, dependency inventory, support model and handover plan.
Weight
5%
Weighted score
Assessment to complete
0 = absent · 1 = weak · 2 = acceptable · 3 = demonstrated
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
How do I choose between Next.js, Nuxt and Angular SSR?
The main criterion is your team's skills: React → Next.js, Vue → Nuxt, Angular → Angular SSR. The functional scope and architecture are identical in all three cases.
Which stack for an Angular team or one coming from Intershop PWA?
Angular SSR: it is the most direct continuity for teams already on Angular, replacing the old Intershop PWA with a modern server-first foundation.
Can I switch stacks later?
Because the functional scope is shared across the three implementations, your business logic and ICM integration still apply; only the frontend layer changes.